I don't get why people are so negative.
First let me start with, the difference between a PC and a console, consoles produce awesome graphics and insane physics with just a fraction of the system requirements of the same game on a PC.
Why? games are specifically designed for that system, so it can be more efficient with resources needed, plus it doesn't need to run a bloated OS in the background.
Remote gaming will probably work in a similar way with, so you don't need a single insane machine to play crysis on it's highest resolution.
Hell, it probably won't even be a single machine as they are inefficient all together.
It's will probably be a server park, like google/blizzard/steam uses.
Grega, ever heard of remote desktopping? it's real time/same resolution and doesn't require insane bandwidth.
This is basically the same concept, they already stated that 1.5mbit would be enough for 480p which is trivial for most people these days.
Mindblowing? Try impractical and idiotic.
1) Now not only are you going to be playing multiplayer games online, you're going to be playing single player games, too! 30 - 90ms of lag between the video streaming to you, and then again when you upload the control input back to the server.
2) You're going to need an online connection wherever you hook up your console (Even someone like me whose online 24/7 doesn't have their 360 hooked up to the 'net because there's no Ethernet cables anywhere near my TV. Not everyone has wireless, and wireless + the aforementioned lag wouldn't be ideal, to say the least).
3) They're going to need a hardware machine running for every single unit sold. High end hardware machines. And what happens when technology advances? They're going to have to replace their entire fleet of hardware. And they're people to take care of said hardware once it malfunctions. And huge datacenters to store the hardware. This is going to cost a lot of money.
This is going to fail.
1) Ever played a online game? multiplayer games are perfectly playable with 50-100ms
you can compensate for lag.
2) I totally know dude, like I'd rather spend 2k money on a high end machine instead of spending a couple of bucks on a cable and dragging it through the room...
3) ever heard of companies like steam, google and blizzard? they have HUGE server parks. this is basically the same thing. it's idiotic and short sighted to think every game will be played on a single unit.
Think about it. They will need one computer to Play the game, record the game, compress the videos and send them off in real time and at a frame rate of 60.
No way they can manage to do that with more than 1 person on a box. I mean when recording a game your frames drop usually below 60 even on a high end PC. And thats just recodring without compression at the same time. Add compression and youd be dealing with frames round 20 or below depending on the compression. They would need computers atleast twice as powerfull as the best gaming rigs market can buy in terms of processing power.
Ever tried to do a full search on your computer, for a single file name? it takes minutes.
however google has billions of gigs of information and you can find links within a second?
just because your machine is crap at something, doesn't mean it's crap for other systems, which specialize in stuff like this.
you'd be surprised how fast things can go when properly done.
Not to mention the shear amount of cash that would be required for maintenance of all those supercomputers.
And no i dont think any currently existing computer can run more than 1 instance of Crysis while recording and compressing video at the same time.
Atleast not with a quality picture.
Advertisement - monthly fee - game creators/publishers - sponsors.
Again, google has a HUGE server park.. several huge server parks. they manage?
You're trying to talk about things you don't know anything about.
If you actually knew anything about the subject at hand you'd instantly realize they wouldn't be using a single machine to start with.
You're way to skeptical about something you don't know jack**** about? why so negative?
Except it probably won't catch on. Why not? Because
A) Some people have bandwidth restrictions, good luck with that one.
B) What about modding? Do this, and all the files will be in the hands of OnLive. The ENTIRE mod community would die out. No more ESF, no more Natural Selection, or any other mod.
C) They would have some kind of monopoly, in the end, prices would probably be quite expensive.
D) I'd still rather have a copy of the games I want to play in my hands.
a) People do have bandwidth restrictions, true. However products can't be for everyone.
Much like crysis can only be played by people with a high end computer.
Which means a lot of people won't be able to play it, does that mean they shouldn't have developed it? Just because some people won't be able to use it?
b) Valid problem, handling this will be tricky. Though they have stated they support modifications.
Still, this might cause problems.
c) Not everyone, as previously mentioned in point a. will get this.
d) Yeah, I used to agree on that one too. Steam changed my mind though.
No more missing disks <3
The problem is though, if they ever go out of business or something silly you won't be able to play the games anymore.
You don't buy stuff, you hire it.
