Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Games' started by Chris Davies, 25 March 2009.
Take a look at this: HERE
very, shall be keeping tabs on this
Does sound very interesting. The fact that some big companies like EA have signed up with it make me think this isn't just some dream of someone but is actually feasible and will work.
I'm keeping my eye on this one.
So its games without a console? All you need is the MicoConsole Clue is in the question there...
Seriously though, can see it working. Who would have thought you would be able to download video to your TV on demand (BT Vision/Sky) a few years back?
Streaming is another thing entirely though, but with Virgin and soon BT rolling out 40-50mbs broadband, who knows!
I can see someone like BT/Sky/Virgin integrating this with their next-gen boxes, or it being built into hi-spec TVs like DVB is now...
It's the future maaaaaaaaan.
So is this pay per play or a 1 off fee and you download the full game to your HDD?
I can see it working like Steam/XBL. Pay for the game, pay for the online service (like XBL).
Your going to have to have a REALLY FAST internet connection for this to work. people can just about stream 720p video content without any hiccups as it is.
The website has now been launched: CLICK
(You can even sign up to beta test if you're in the US!)
And another BBC NEWS story about it: CLICK
("To various 'oohs' and 'aahs' from the audience, the two men played games ranging from Crysis Wars to Lego Batman from a cheap laptop and from a Mac notebook.")
Okay then, "Games Without MULTIPLE Consoles", smartarse. And it's MicroConsole, not MicoConsole.
imagine if your with an ISP that has download limits. epic fail at the current internet speed we have now. this would need LAN type speeds to work without any lag
I was under the impression from reading the site that you don't download the game (i.e. 4gb or whatever), the game is installed on the server and the game is PLAYED on the server, it's just streaming the pictures generated to your TV - i.e. Remote Desktop for games.
So it wouldn't need any more bandwidth than playing any other game.
but when streaming data, doesn't it download parts of the file into your pc? Thats the assumption i get as the more faster your broadband speed is, the faster it is at loading/playing streams.
Another reason why this is an epic fail, not everyone has the internet. this will force people into having a internet connection to play games.
This idea would kill off piracy completely though
You've missed the point, there is no HDD!
It'll either be pay to unlock each game, or pay a subscription to play all games (probably both)
this is partners so far which is posted on the site:-
the system itself:-
all taken from the site
Actually you would need more imo, the bandwidth isn't in the gamedata but in the gamevideo. Meaning instead of downloading the game you download the videofeed every playsession.
If I max my connection with a usenet download I get 400KB/sec (3-4mb/sec) which equals about 1,2GB per hour which equals 720p compressed video for 45min. So lets say they have equal data but with more fidelity with the new compression technology that would be the minimum speed with extra needed for other online activities (downloading whilst playing, etc).
So if the needed online connection costs 10pound/euro more per month to make it viable that equals owning a console for 2 years and after that you are cheaper off (10x24+trade-in value of console). Then you get to games and what you get for the subscription and how many games you buy which is another calculation.
Sounds decent I guess, especially if you mostly play online, but Im doubtfull they could get the connection good enough to equal singleplayer control speed.
I have big doubts about this. You need an incredibly good UPLOAD speed and a brutal download bandwith. And even that, there WILL be lag even playing single player.
Besides, does it means there is a CPU running your game on the server side? How many users can handle every server? I figure out not many, taking into consideration the huge ammount of calculations needed for just one player (drawing polygons, texturing, shadowing, animation, post-processing effects, AI, physics engine...). So how do they expect to do this for thousands of players really goes out of the question right now. Maybe in 10 or 20 years...
They just start a video of someone playing the same game and hope you dont notice
THANK FUCK, THE END OF FANBOYISM SHITE!
I know for sure my BB speed wouldnt be quick enough for this system, and the whole having to be online to play isnt the greatest idea, think of the server problems that XB Live has had, or the hit the servers take on PSN and XBL when some big demo or new release hits. Can you imagine the hit the servers would take on this system when some triple A title launches.
I don't trust streaming a full game at all.
No way will our broadband providers actually doing something to make this a feasable reality, not a chance.
Bring on the ISP fanboys!
So won't online mp games be super laggy then with all this extra streaming/uploading/downloading going on? Games have enough crap going on when it's loading from your own console.
GDC: Why OnLive Can't Possibly Work
i have problems with this writer.. he is behind the times, specfically
"And what about computer costs? OnLive is promising state-of-the-art PCs running your game experience. The costs in creating the datacenters are going to be humungous, even factoring in the assistance of a volume manufacturer like Dell or HP. And what happens when GTA or Half-Life comes out and everyone wants to play it simultaneously? Will we have to take turns on connecting to the available servers? Computer costs, bandwidth costs, development costs, publisher royalties... it's all starting to sound hugely, and prohibitively, expensive. Not surprisingly, OnLive is keeping mum about its cost structure to the end-user."
its called cloud computing buddy... its here and it can easily handle this... i think some of these nerds who write these articles dont realize, that there are much more powerful computers out there then there maxed out falcon desktop. This guys is probably imagining a datacenter with a thousand desktops stacked on tables, LOL
what about the bandwidth?
i didnt say i had a problem with that part of his argument. LOL. However I do beleive eventually it wont be a problem, its just a question of when. Eventually you wont have media at all.... everything will be streamed.. and everything will be virtualized.. which scares me because i want my data with m e, not on some server somewhere
So would we have to buy HDD space from them to save our games?
essentially yes i would think. go research cloud computing and I think you will get an idea of how they would achieve this...
I'd prefer to have a disc in my hand I think. It'll be like paying my friend to walk into town and buy a game I want - and then the only way I can play it is if I invite him round to my house. And when I stop playing he takes the disc back to his.