212: Destroy All Consoles

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Destroy All Consoles

Is the Age of the Console about to come to a close? According to three prominent game industry executives, all signs point to "yes." Ray Huling looks at how streaming technologies could usher in a new era of gaming.

Read Full Article

Ehhh...

I really don't have anything to say about this. Who knows what will happen. And personally, I don't entirely trust these people. As a gamer I will wait to see if they shall truly deliver.

while this streaming thing looks cool, and has the air of enevitability about it, it has one major hurtle to get over, and thats THE IDESTRY ITSELF.

Who says the comsole companies are going to let this happen? Consoles have been the norm for decades now and if one thing that history has told us, its that humans as a whole loath to deviate from the norm. alot of people are extreamly comfortable and happy with their consols and disks. these are the people that Sony and Microsoft target, the ones between the hardcore and the casual, in that gray area that continueously spits money at them. for the sake of these people, and more acurately the revenue they generate, the big boys are going to try thier dammedest to keep this new format out of their market.

And then there is the possibility that the Gamers themselves will defeat this. It happened to Nintendo and the Wii. Everyone was pretty pumped up about the Motion Sensor technology and its aplication to games, but when Nintendo failed to meet our unyielding standards in good time, the Wii was labled a "gimik" and has been on the fall in the hardcore eye for and grey area gamers for a very long time. the only reason it still exsists is because of the casual gamers, but that fanbase has severely stunted the consoles growth from the very begining, and if Nintendo doesnt do something soon, they may even lose them...

I see a sort of "Who Killed The Electric Car" EV1 senario developing, where streaming is given its chance, and then the console companies tag team with the big name developers (shifty eyes at EA and Activision) to bring them down by burring them in obscurity. It will be up to smaller developers to band together with the new streaming technogies to beat Sony and Microsoft into submission.

I for one, am excited about this, despite the fact that i can see its inevitable failure. there is room for true greatness here, as small time developers will have a slew of new opertunities to get themselve in the eye of the masses and really strut their stuff. if streaming technology does actually prevail, there could be so many more original and fresh titles hitting the theoretical shelves of the Internet and alot more people picking them up.

I am going to sit back and root for streamers, while tightly clutching my console as insurance in case they fail.

Its possible, but not for a long while yet. Streaming one way media is slow enough, but both ways with high end graphics will ber a nightmare.
Also, the netwrok infastructure is no where large enough to cope with such demand. Disc based will carry on for a good ten years yet.

Well, I look forward to playing my games with all the clarity and responsiveness of YouTube videos.

Because that's the best video streaming technology has to offer at current. And I don't see anyone producing the kind of infrastructure necessary to provide streamed HD video with less than 100ms of lag over TCP/IP anytime soon. Anything other than that is a huge step backwards in terms of gaming experience, and gamers won't go for it.

So why on earth do these companies keep getting attention? It seems absurd to me that we're reading four page articles on these con artists. There is no way for them to deliver the experience they keep waxing lyrical about, yet no-one seems willing to call them on it.

A "moneywall"? So that's what marketing scum call unbridled greed these days. Their capacity for strangling the English language knows no bounds. Just watch, "moneywall" will become the next popular weasel word, repeated everywhere by herds of media parrots who prefer not to think. Kind of like "key" is the new "core", which replaced "paradigm".

I wouldn't buy it, what if they remove a game or deny you access?

No, dear god i hope this does not come into act within the decade or more, not unless they work out the kinks in Streaming, if they dont the quality of games will go down significantly, and we are all use to a higher quality in our games as of late

I have an EGM from 11 years ago has has a similarly themed article. The article was saying that the Sony Playstation was going to destroy video games on the personal computer. The article cites games like Final Fantasy VII, Intelligent Qube, Tomb Raider 2, and Resident evil 2 being better than anything on the personal computer at the time. PC gaming had to make a comeback and it did.

In my collection at home, I have a 20 year old Game Pro where the opinion columnist was convinced that console gaming was never going to last because what was in the arcade was graphically superior in every way. Look at what happened to arcades in the mean time?

I am pretty sure there is some fanzine out there released in 1984 saying that there is no reason to go buy a console anymore because ET killed the 2600.

Fact of the matters is there will always be doomsayers predicting the end of something. I'll wait until I see it before I say yep you are right.

Personally i don't see this streaming games only thing working , maybe way later when internet companys get off there ass's and fix all the problems lately, but for now streaming is very unreliable. If you have a bad connection, like wifi or dsl or dial up and hell even broadband at times, even youtube screws up often. Nowadays huge games like GTA 4 or Fallout 3 would take hours just to stream, let alone run smooothly when they accualy get there. Not everyone has super gaming rigs. Even if they go to boxs on our tvs the net problems still exist.

Very interesting read. I still don't believe in the OnLive hype. The technology just does not exist yet to provide an enjoyable experience for at least 80% of the time (and I would consider that the bare minimum I would be willing to deal with.) I could see it in the future though, very much, for certain games. For Free-to-Play or subscription based (like MMOs) this could work, since you have to be connected to the net anyways. For single player games though, I would not want to be unable to play during internet downtimes or when I'm unable to connect to my network. The PC/console market may shrink, but I don't think it will become entirely insignificant.

Fex Worldwide:
Well, I look forward to playing my games with all the clarity and responsiveness of YouTube videos.

So long as the community and comments are nowhere near the same, I'd go with this.

Haha, just kidding. I really don't trust this idea. Companies like Sony and Microsoft wear the pants among the gaming industry for a reason: they're good at what they do. Unless the guys coming up with these new ideas are all former employees, or have ample experience, I have a feeling they have little idea of what they're getting into.

Fully agree with the title, rest of the artile is rubbish.

OnLive failed their GCD presentation by suffering from every single problem they claimed would be solved: Bad image quality, lag, input delay and choppiness.

Oh I've heard of this blasted thing before, I never caught the name of it until now, but as I said I've heard of it. Personally I don't think that the concept will work very well, like others have said before streaming really needs to be fixed before this sort of thing is really going to be able to work, I mean that sort of system can barely handle flash games, I dread to think of how it would handle something like Crysis.

Although one thing does come to mind when I think of it, and that would be the "Interstellar Bum Pirates on the Universal Overmind" gag from one of Yahtzee's videos.

The reasons i think Onlive will fail are as follows:

1) To achieve HD output you must have at least a 5 mbps internet connection.
2) It will only be available in the US.
3) How good the connection is and therefore if you will have HD is dependent on how far you are. from the servers.
4) The possibility of a subscription fee might put off a lot of people.
5) Already a large amount of the gamers that inhabit the earth have dug deep into there pockets in order to buy one of the current generation consoles or upgrade they're PC.

I don't believe we're there yet technology wise maybe in 5 years this could work, but at the moment there are too many problems.

Perry calls this the "moneywall" - it keeps players away from the game and establishes a limit on revenues.

Free-to-play lets players spend as much as they want on a game. While some players spend only a few bucks, others spend thousands.

Does anyone else find it alarming that the developers are talking about making a $1000 from a single customer for a single game? Even if they aren't trying to do that, shouldn't it be alarming that they'd be ok with doing that? This design model sounds like something L. Ron Hubbard developed before he bought the farm.

I am sure that the $1000 statement was a figurative one---hyperbole if you will...

But the statement isn't vapid: it's still an accurate depiction of the design's mindset.

The article mentions Nexon: Has anyone here played Nexon games? The grind of Maplestory makes WoW look like a joke. All the game boils down to is a hook to get people playing, a mechanic that keeps people addicted, and lots and lots of things with price tags.

The result is disgusting. Hundreds of people wasting DAYS of playtime to grind out the level between 240 and 241. And all the while shelling out their hard earned dollars for non-existent clothing items to make their character look cool. Or worse: To give them an edge in their grinding. Oh, for only $20 I can get this Flaming Broadsword of +Jajillion damage.

And While one could hardly claim the Maplestory fanbase is filled with 12-year-old addicts stealing their mom's credit cards, one would also be foolish to ignore that this crack-whore reaction is relatively prevalent in the "free-to-play," medium, at least compared to the current console system. Even with down-loadable content, I haven't read many stories of kids running up several hundred dollar charges.

Sure, Onlive promises to deliver exciting things to costomers. It also promises new ways for developers to fuck us in the ass: and those new ways are harder and larger than anything that's fucked us in the ass before. Are we really going to submit to total anal domination for a tempting carrot on a stick?

I mean I already feel cheated with down-loadable content for Call of Duty, etc. I can't even imagine what onlive will feel like.

I have mixed opinions on the subject.

To be honest I don't see this working very well to be honest. I, like many people do not care for the whole "free to play, but buy items to progress" model. As they even say above the idea is pretty much to break the "moneywall" and get people to pay more than the general $60 price of admission (as if DLC wasn't already doing this) that isn't going to work for a lot of people.

Consider that some of these games touting "more players than WoW!" are gaining a lot of those players from eastern markets. The Eastern and Western mentalities when it comes to such things are very differant. One of the major differances being that Westerners expect what amounts to a level playing field at least to start. Easteners do not. The "pay as you go" type format gives people with a lot of money a decided advantage in these games because they can level up faster, have better items faster, and basically buy their way to the endgame or high PVP ratings. It's also quite possible (and dare I say expected) that those who pay for content are going to "lock out" those that do not.

I think it has a lot to do with a capitolist society (everyone can advance and it's a shark race, but we have a definate belief in fundemental equality) compared to others where people are taught more to accept their lot in life, advancement is comparitively rare, and games like everything else simply represent the social order.

I also think education plays a role. While a lot of people like to say that countries like Korea, China, etc... are ahead of the US in terms of education when it comes to mathematics and such, it should be noted that less of the population is actually educated to any extent (compared to the US where most people are). Look back at things like the SARS epidemic which started with people in China living with their livestock and the scenes you saw there, along with the fact that the Chinese more or less forced their "peasants" off the streets for things like The Olympics to only put their best foot forward. Not to mention the fact that academic competitions are rigged (oftentimes having American public school students going up against those from Genius programs in other countries, as opposed to us putting our best people forward to represent the country) but this comes down to another entire discussion.

At any rate, the guy who has to chase his goat away from his computer, or can only afford to play at a local internet cafe (or Bang as they call them in Korea if I recall) has a definatly differant attitude. Spending a few bucks each time to play a game can be like going to see a movie or whatever, and it's affordable on their pay scale, and really the guy probably isn't smart/educated enough to know when he's getting boned. Not all Chinese are like this of course, but we're talking about those unwashed millions of cheap-labour factory workers that are filling out that gaming population.

Now sure, a game that gets millions of people from a larger population to pay a couple of bucks a day for something new, is going to outperform one using a flat monthly fee, a single high admission price, or both, but you have to look at the cultures who are doing that as opposed to the ones in the civilized Western World (and honestly given the conditions that lead to that cheap manufacturing and such that they exploit, I've long been reluctant to actually consider China civilized... civilization being defined by the most enlightened people on the planet at a time. Leading to concepts like Neo-Barbarism as opposed to actual Barbarism... but that's again another discussion).

I think Korea is a step up from China here on a lot of levels, but still has a lot of the same factors at play. Given that video gaming is akin to a major sport there (which I personally think is kind of retarded. If it wasn't real I'd almost suspect it was something an actual racist would have invented for a KKK pamphlet). I think it's a big deal in part because of the social structure and the amount of "oomph" you need to be able to have to
play games that much.

What does this have to do with streaming games? Well basically I don't think that the Western Market would embrace the way they want to market it, and honestly I'm not sure if I can see it working any other way. Plus developers (who are increasingly greedy) miss the entire "disc in hand" attitude of consumers. The idea that we in the US want a physical product we can keep, and the abillity to take what we see as OUR game and plug it into an old computer and play 20 years later if we get the craving. Just as many people STILL rev up their old Commodore 64s type Load "*" ,8,1 wait for it to say ready and then type "Run" and play their old games (even if they are admittedly becoming increasingly uncommon, there are entire subcultures dedicated to stuff like this and the Apple II), people want the abillity to do that with their old games. You know, when I'm in a nursing home I might just get a craving to play the original Silent Hill and not want to have to pay money again for something I already bought. :)

Generally speaking game companies are moving increasingly towards online "direct to drive" games for the PC, but I sort of suspect this is part of why Consoles are exploding.

Besides, anyone with half a brain knows that once they lock in a market they are going to want to charge that $60 admission fee and THEN charge for the content. Look at like Champions Online. They seem to want to get $50-$60 for their base software, charge a monthy fee, and then pay extra money to remain competitive. :P

Oh sure, someone out there will say that this will be great for consumers because of how it will lower prices, but even the sheeple get smart after a while (we always hope). The whole Direct To Drive thing that sold networks like Steam was supposed to lower game prices by cutting out packaging and distributers. In the end all it did was amount to you paying the same thing for a game without a physical copy, with more profits going directly to the producers and developers.

All streaming games are going to do, is be another version of "Steam". Heck, since Steam plays by the rules it isn't even a good way to get around censors and sales regions. I fail to see the point entirely from the perspective of a consumer, though I see why producers and developers who are contemplating a second Lamborgini love the idea.

I'm excited for lag to migrate over from multiplayer games into single player ones. In marketing terms, that's called 'synergy'.

Toty54:
The reasons i think Onlive will fail are as follows:

1) To achieve HD output you must have at least a 5 mbps internet connection.
2) It will only be available in the US.
3) How good the connection is and therefore if you will have HD is dependent on how far you are. from the servers.
4) The possibility of a subscription fee might put off a lot of people.
5) Already a large amount of the gamers that inhabit the earth have dug deep into there pockets in order to buy one of the current generation consoles or upgrade they're PC.

I don't believe we're there yet technology wise maybe in 5 years this could work, but at the moment there are too many problems.

I agree with all of your points and would like to add the prohibitive cost of building and maintaining enough server-side graphics processing power to deliver a decent gaming experience to the end user. That cost means you are looking at very large subscription fees, a definite turn off, seeing as paying a hefty subscription for a year would put you in spitting distance of the amount you would normally have spent on a console/ computer.

Maybe it is the future, but it might have been announced too early. As others have said, streaming one way is slow, but both ways? That's a nightmare. That kind of tech doen't exist yet, or at least not on a mainstream level. It will be years before this is a possibility, and by then all interest in this project might not be there, and the idea could die before launch. For now, I'm perfectly happy with my 360, thanks.

Nice piece, Ray. It surprises me that so many focus on the technical challenges and suggest that streaming video games are impossible. The technical challenges are being solved right now by the likes of OnLive, Gaikai, Otoy, and others. And the faster-internet-to-the-home issue will also see progress in the near future. The combination of more bandwidth to more homes, (relatively) inexpensive server farms, outstanding compression, and improvements in input controllers are forming and will continue to form the environment to make this possible.

The question is, as Ray points out in the article, the business model. Who is going to make this work in a way that is commercially viable? There are several more players that could be involved (see The Emerging Competition over Streamed Video Games for several options). The likes of OnLive and Gaikai could both be very successful with different approaches - I have a feeling there is plenty of room in this emerging space for more than one solution.

I don't see this happening. At all. They're trying to topple all three gaming giants in this industry.

And as Jack Thompson will tell you, it is impossible to do.

no, consoles are not coming to an end and lol at some of the arguments in the article...

First of all OnLive is a TERRIBLE example to be giving.

OnLive promised a lot of things and made most of it up as they went (just look at the maximum range of their servers, i think you can find this number on wiki). OnLive will never work, it is too costly and no one wants to pay monthly only to have to pay again to buy and rent games!

You would need too many servers all over the world to get OnLive to even work at all, lets also not forget that OnLive does not really work nearly as good as they would want you to believe, often there is a delay, even at one of their demonstrations where they servers were not even that far away there was a delay!

As for the free to play games, once again a bad example, all free to play games have micro transactions along the line, i like to refer to them as hidden fees. You start to play the free to play game, get into it and just as you are starting to like it a window will pop up, want to get the most out of the game PAY FOR PREMIUM CONTENT... etc...

Free to play games are also way lower quality than normal games and thus for those who have the money to buy a console or to buy World of Warcraft, it is much more desireable than playing some shitty asian free to play game :P

Sorry but analists cant tell you everything, they cant tell you if you are going to live or die tomorrow, they cant tell you the future, they dont even have crytal balls!

They just look at numbers, but they never factor in everything and often dont even know anything about the thing they are talking about.

In this case its obvious they are looking at the gaming industry all to cut and dry...

Free to play games, no matter how big, will never bring up as much profit as WoW does NOR will they even bring up nearly as much fun as WoW does!

In the end, all that matters is the quality of the product, at this time, full paid for games have the highest quality and give the most fun, thus consumers will look at their options and if they have the money, they will go and buy a Wii, a PS3 or an Xbox 360. Or they will be buying a gaming PC.

Only people with limited amounts of money tend to play free to play games and often they draw their friends in who even might already own a console or WoW as friends like to play games with each other.

So to summarise, that article is full of shit :P
Consoles will always be here, PC gaming will always be here and OnLive is going to fail... badly... I mean come on... they dont even have plans for Europe yet, nor does it even seem at all possible for them to provide OnLive to everyone in the USA, due to the extremely limited range of their servers!!!

The eradication of gamestop is reason enough for me to hope streaming services are a success.
Bring it on.

It's also a great answer to anyone who was trying to shop for a next gen console and had to decide for an expensive toy, an expensive console that spontaneously combusts, or a ridiculously expensive console that doesn't. Those aren't great choices for any consumer group and I know plenty of people who haven't taken that next gen plunge because of those choices.

Then again, this probably will bring fourth a new breed of even more smug and self-important fanboy to annoy all the console owners they way they've been annoying each other.

It will never happen.

Streaming games is possible, but streaming last generation games never will be.

Suppose 1000 players per server, ten times less than a typical WoW server. So that's an increadibly generous estimation.
WoW is hugely succesful and Blizzard is swimming in dough, so a poorer busines will prolly need to cater to more than 10000 players per server to make a profit.

Only unlike WoW for this streaming business *everything* has to be done on the server this time.

Then what would be theoretically possible right now, if internet connections were all perfect and only the CPU proved to be a bottleneck?

A core i7 965 extreme edition can do about 75000 MIPS.
75000 MIPS /1000 clients = 75 MIPS per client.

A pentium 2 could manage about 800 MIPS. That was a good cpu back in 1998.

So even in the most optimistic scenario there is no way in hell they could stream games that less than 10 yrs behind the current generation.

GamerLuck:
while this streaming thing looks cool, and has the air of enevitability about it, it has one major hurtle to get over, and thats THE IDESTRY ITSELF.

Who says the comsole companies are going to let this happen? Consoles have been the norm for decades now and if one thing that history has told us, its that humans as a whole loath to deviate from the norm. alot of people are extreamly comfortable and happy with their consols and disks. these are the people that Sony and Microsoft target, the ones between the hardcore and the casual, in that gray area that continueously spits money at them. for the sake of these people, and more acurately the revenue they generate, the big boys are going to try thier dammedest to keep this new format out of their market.

And then there is the possibility that the Gamers themselves will defeat this. It happened to Nintendo and the Wii. Everyone was pretty pumped up about the Motion Sensor technology and its aplication to games, but when Nintendo failed to meet our unyielding standards in good time, the Wii was labled a "gimik" and has been on the fall in the hardcore eye for and grey area gamers for a very long time. the only reason it still exsists is because of the casual gamers, but that fanbase has severely stunted the consoles growth from the very begining, and if Nintendo doesnt do something soon, they may even lose them...

I see a sort of "Who Killed The Electric Car" EV1 senario developing, where streaming is given its chance, and then the console companies tag team with the big name developers (shifty eyes at EA and Activision) to bring them down by burring them in obscurity. It will be up to smaller developers to band together with the new streaming technogies to beat Sony and Microsoft into submission.

I for one, am excited about this, despite the fact that i can see its inevitable failure. there is room for true greatness here, as small time developers will have a slew of new opertunities to get themselve in the eye of the masses and really strut their stuff. if streaming technology does actually prevail, there could be so many more original and fresh titles hitting the theoretical shelves of the Internet and alot more people picking them up.

I am going to sit back and root for streamers, while tightly clutching my console as insurance in case they fail.

Yeah, while im skeptical about OnLive, Otyo, and Gaiko etc, If these things work like its said they will, Then they will completely render consoles obselete. However I feel theres quite a chance that maybe the devs are telling a few fibs...

And with your post, theres one or two problems. You said maybe the console/game devs might not let it happen, but a majority of them have already signed up with OnLive and agreed to let them use their current and future games if OL works.

And you said that the wii only exists because of the core fanbase, but the casual gamer population is alot larger than the Hardcore gamer pop.
Nintendo Wii - No. 1 selling console worldwide.
Xbox 360 - No. 2 selling console worldwide.
Playstation 3 - 3rd and worst selling console worldwide.

hard to believe Xbox and Ps3 are being beaten by...that...evil...white...nintendo...junk.

But then again, if OnLive works, the gaming industry will be turned completely upside-down and The big three will be obselete.

I hope its not coming out for at least three years, or it fails or something, because I am looking forward to project Natal to be released and perfected...

veloper:
It will never happen.

Streaming games is possible, but streaming last generation games never will be.

Suppose 1000 players per server, ten times less than a typical WoW server. So that's an increadibly generous estimation.
WoW is hugely succesful and Blizzard is swimming in dough, so a poorer busines will prolly need to cater to more than 10000 players per server to make a profit.

Only unlike WoW for this streaming business *everything* has to be done on the server this time.

Then what would be theoretically possible right now, if internet connections were all perfect and only the CPU proved to be a bottleneck?

A core i7 965 extreme edition can do about 75000 MIPS.
75000 MIPS /1000 clients = 75 MIPS per client.

A pentium 2 could manage about 800 MIPS. That was a good cpu back in 1998.

So even in the most optimistic scenario there is no way in hell they could stream games that less than 10 yrs behind the current generation.

Um...well, we dont NEED to stream 10-year old games.
I mean, you dont see the Xbox 360 and Ps3 failing because they are very bad at playing games from just ONE generation ago, and 10 years is two gens, and games from that era dont have nearly the largest market in gaming...

While I am skeptical of their claims that this is going to inevitably replace consoles whether or not it is them who does it, the thing that really angers me is that they are bringing micro-transactions into this.

Asking your players to pay a one time price for all the content you release at the beginning is fine if there is enough content and/or it is good content. Even DLC is fine, since it usually isn't that much and delivers a sizable amount of content, and some companies have started releasing them on discs, such as Halo 3:ODST and the new Edition of Fallout 3 packing in all the previous DLC.

Micro-transactions, however, are the greedy, sneaky version of DLC. Whereas DLC provides updates and continues the games' fun, micro-transactions force you to pay out the nose for every single object you want and, in some cases, need to compete with the people who have paid for these things. Not to mention that Xbox Live's DLC at least lets you keep these things, unlike of some micro-transaction games I've seen, that force you to continue to pay for that weapon in order to keep using it. I would much prefer to pay $20 for something that I will enjoy maybe 50% of, and don't necessarily need to keep enjoying the game or compete with others online, and get to keep and re-download if I have to since I have already paid for it, than to have to pay several hundred dollars in order to compete with some person who's given the money by their parents to use it every week.

I realize the need for the industry to make money, but it does that just fine now, without charging the player for every single bit of content. Let me buy the whole game you developed first, if you try to withhold some of it in order to get more money, I'll just never buy your stuff. I'm not saying there aren't people who wont buy all those little things, but it means the rest of us get cheated out of a full game, and I bet some of those people still hate having to pay extra, but like those who provide the endless purchases of party games on the Wii holding back the development of other types of games (though that, at least, seems to be finally turning around), they don't realize that by giving in they are sending the message that we will all do the same. I, for one, will not.

Maybe the streaming thing would've worked out, but with the micro-transactions it just becomes a depressing chore. If this is the future of gaming, I'm hanging on to my Xbox 360, because the future is shaping up to be an expensive place. If they bring micro-transactions to the next wave of game design, I can only hope that more people will take a stand, and let the developers know that this is taking things too far.

neon007:
no, consoles are not coming to an end and lol at some of the arguments in the article...

First of all OnLive is a TERRIBLE example to be giving.

OnLive promised a lot of things and made most of it up as they went (just look at the maximum range of their servers, i think you can find this number on wiki). OnLive will never work, it is too costly and no one wants to pay monthly only to have to pay again to buy and rent games!

You shouldn't make stupid accusations when you don't even have your facts (and grammar...) right.

You only have to pay once per month, then you can play all the games you want. FREE

Also, where did you come up with this idea that they are 'making it up as they go along'? They have been working on it for a while, and only recently gave out the details, and they haven't changed their story.
And obviously, they can set up servers in different parts of the world.

And you made the arguement that free-2-play games are lower quality, but these are all the SAME games made by the SAME developers that you get on our current gen consoles.

It's a bold plan but it's just way too soon.

This sounds good in theory, but it suffers from one glaring fatal flaw. The bandwidth requirements for streaming games in real time would be huge esp. for games with current generation graphics and sound. Even current high speed broadband connections would probably be insufficient for handling such demand, nevermind that you're alienating those who can't get a broadband connection for one reason or another.

Ashbax:

veloper:
It will never happen.

Streaming games is possible, but streaming last generation games never will be.

Suppose 1000 players per server, ten times less than a typical WoW server. So that's an increadibly generous estimation.
WoW is hugely succesful and Blizzard is swimming in dough, so a poorer busines will prolly need to cater to more than 10000 players per server to make a profit.

Only unlike WoW for this streaming business *everything* has to be done on the server this time.

Then what would be theoretically possible right now, if internet connections were all perfect and only the CPU proved to be a bottleneck?

A core i7 965 extreme edition can do about 75000 MIPS.
75000 MIPS /1000 clients = 75 MIPS per client.

A pentium 2 could manage about 800 MIPS. That was a good cpu back in 1998.

So even in the most optimistic scenario there is no way in hell they could stream games that less than 10 yrs behind the current generation.

Um...well, we dont NEED to stream 10-year old games.
I mean, you dont see the Xbox 360 and Ps3 failing because they are very bad at playing games from just ONE generation ago, and 10 years is two gens, and games from that era dont have nearly the largest market in gaming...

Exactly. Streaming games would always suck.

Nomatter how far you go into the future, doing all the work on the server side would always result in an experience inferior to the crap 10++ year old hardware can do and hardware depreciates so fast, that kind of equipment is almost free.

It's most likely that much of this is "marketing spin" just like OnLive is ... it's "Gee whiz" technology that really isn't practical for a myriad of reasons, technological and otherwise.

What's good about console (and even PC) gaming is the economy that it stimulates.

Were these streaming game technologies to actually succeed, I have to ask what happens when we're no longer buying new PCs because we can now play Crysis on a decade old laptop? What happens when GameStop and other establishments don't make a fortune from the resale business? Most importantly, what will Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony do when they see a slump in sales?

I suggest that these companies will casually watch and simply lower their price point in response. If gamers aren't buying technology to support their gaming habit, then companies like OnLive do ... it's a simple equation. As gamers aren't particularly well-known for their fanaticism about paying monthly fees for "services" (not WoW) so I expect that a double-whammy will devastate these companies before they even begin to see a revenue stream.

Consumer skepticism really isn't a good sign ... even after all the marketing dollars spent on fake fanboy sites like "onlivefans.com".

Sorry, but the age of the console is probably just beginning. A smart box is infinitely better than a dummy terminal, particularly when the internet connection is down.

I don't desire for this to become the standard for PC gaming, and I do not believe that it will. Although this may appeal to those that don't modify or change the files of the games, this would definitely not appeal to me or to those that wish to get more out of a game.

By having the game on your own computer, it allows you to change or enhance your gaming experience to your own liking. And the best part of it is that it is free.

Some games are great on their own. Look at Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. It's an entertaining game without any additional content. However, when you add some community made mods or mod the game yourself, it becomes a much more entertaining game. A developer cannot make a game that appeals to everyones tastes but through mods, it allows the community to change a game to their liking.

Unless the OnLive system allows you to modify your files, I would not buy this product.

"With server-side rendering, basically, anything that we put up on that system will work forever."

And if they decide that my favourite game is no longer worth their time hosting... then it will just go?

I play a lot of older games, this has absolutely nothing to offer me.

I'd also second what jmancube said, modding of PC games is great and I would hate to lose that function.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here