Brontoforumus Archive

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:


This board has been fossilized.
You are reading an archive of Brontoforumus, a.k.a. The Worst Forums Ever, from 2008 to early 2014.  Registration and posting (for most members) has been disabled here to discourage spambots from taking over.  Old members can still log in to view boards, PMs, etc.

The new message board is at http://brontoforum.us.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Author Topic: Fluffy Clouds  (Read 4114 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Logged

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Fluffy Clouds
« Reply #1 on: March 24, 2009, 03:54:05 PM »

The PS3 is already some sort of lumbering hybrid DVD/Internet/Software machine, the Wii is a growing tumor of gadgets and addons, and the 360 is nothing more than a Windows PC that's been kicked in the head a few times.  None of them are traditional game-consoles, and wouldn't really notice if the task of processing the games was done server-side.

That said, I call bullshit on the fantasy-future pitch.  The day every video game in the world requires a stable internet connection is the day I take up reading for a hobby.
Logged

jsnlxndrlv

  • Custom Title
  • Tested
  • Karma: 24
  • Posts: 2913
    • View Profile
    • Website title
Fluffy Clouds
« Reply #2 on: March 24, 2009, 04:03:07 PM »

Bginning of the end for consoles, or just awful WEB TV/Virtual Boy hullabaloo?

Ironic timing, since Greg Costikyan was just arguing that cloud computing makes no sense for gaming.  I guess I can see room for this kind of thing in the market, if people would rather pay for an OnLive subscription than to pay for better hardware, but this doesn't exactly obsolete consoles or existing distribution methods like Steam.  Given the choice between two versions of the same product,

1. one of which requires internet access, can't be played offline, can't be backed up to play later, and is payed for continuously, versus

2. the same thing but is only paid for once, exists on physical media or the user's hard drive, and can be played as much as the user wants until he misplaces it,

I rather suspect most people are going to pick the second option.  Kind of sounds similar to the argument being debated about Spore's DRM, and we all recall how that turned out.
Logged
Signature:
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

Büge

  • won't give you fleaz
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65304
  • Posts: 10062
    • View Profile
Fluffy Clouds
« Reply #3 on: March 24, 2009, 04:12:10 PM »

HEY GUISE REMEMBER SEGA CHANNEL

SHIT WAS SO CASH
Logged

Arc

  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: 0
  • Posts: 3703
    • View Profile
Fluffy Clouds
« Reply #4 on: March 24, 2009, 04:20:37 PM »

:yarr: I's is nots a fan of this idears!

:profit: You had me at streaming.

:happy: Monthly plans roxxor. Means we never have to save our allowance up!
Logged

Bongo Bill

  • Dinosaurcerer
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65431
  • Posts: 5244
    • View Profile
Fluffy Clouds
« Reply #5 on: March 24, 2009, 04:29:40 PM »

Seems like latency would make the whole endeavor impossible.
Logged
...but is it art?

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Fluffy Clouds
« Reply #6 on: March 24, 2009, 05:18:33 PM »

HEY GUISE REMEMBER SEGA CHANNEL

SHIT WAS SO CASH

Hey, fuck you.  Sega Channel was the absolute tits, especially later when I realized I had been emulating with flash ROMs long before it ever became a thing.
Logged

Catloaf

  • Tested
  • Karma: 14
  • Posts: 1740
    • View Profile
Fluffy Clouds
« Reply #7 on: March 24, 2009, 06:30:50 PM »

Seems like latency would make the whole endeavor impossible.

They talk like they got that under control.  They say they have a whole different kind of server structure that took 7 years to develop.  And apparently the slower your internet connection gets, the worse your resolution gets.

It's a cool idea, but I'll have to see it in action.

EDIT:  I think things could go places in online gaming if parts of the game were to be cloud computed (not just tiny bits, either) and other parts computed on the PC itself.  Hell, a system to shift how much is being computed on each side based on latency to keep players from being at advantage/disadvantage for having their internet fuck up.
Logged

Saturn

  • Tested
  • Karma: 3
  • Posts: 1670
    • View Profile
Fluffy Clouds
« Reply #8 on: March 24, 2009, 06:34:19 PM »

so anything less than a fucking fiber-line makes everything look like youtube.

great
Logged

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Fluffy Clouds
« Reply #9 on: March 24, 2009, 07:19:17 PM »

Okay, seriously though, I think if this doesn't turn out to be some sort of Infinium Phantom bullshit thing, it could actually work in the right contexts.  Charge a subscription, offer up the games, do whatever your 7-years-in-development (bullshit) servers do, find out that yeah most people in the real world end up with some lag and blockified displays.  You know what, that's fine.  I could totally play a bunch of games like that - games I want to play, but don't really need a copy of necessarily, and don't care that much that I'm not getting the best experience out of.  Like, I'd play Halo 3 with it.  I don't give nearly enough of a shit about Halo 3 to buy it (and a 360), but I'd like to go through it once for the sake of completion if nothing else.  MGS4... that's not so much about the graphics or reflexes, so I'd play that server-side, sure (though I'd buy it too eventually, again for the sake of completion).  Pretty much the entirety of EA's library, which they seem to have already signed on with so hey, awesome.  At the very least, you know you can't possibly end up with any sort of copy-protection bullshit dragging you down.

Of course, there will always be some games that I will want to OWN, and play on my own goddam machine, thank-you-very-much.  I will never, ever, ever play TF2 this way, that's retarded.  I wouldn't play Smash Bros. this way, and probably not SF4 either.  MGS4, like I said, I'd play it server-side until I got a PS3, but I'd really rather have a copy of it because, fuck, I'd like to own a copy of it.  And so on, and on, and on... you get the idea.

This isn't nearly going to kill consoles, or retailers, as the dumbass marketing guy they have keeps wanting to claim.  Hell, GameStop's still in business despite Gamefly, Gametap and Steam, so there's definitely always going to be some value in going out and buying a physical copy to put on your shelf.  This is just an alternate way of going about your gaming, just like the others, and if it actually goddam works then I'm all actually goddam for it.
Logged

Cthulhu-chan

  • Tested
  • Karma: 10
  • Posts: 2036
    • View Profile
Fluffy Clouds
« Reply #10 on: March 24, 2009, 11:06:39 PM »

Seems like latency would make the whole endeavor impossible.

They talk like they got that under control.  They say they have a whole different kind of server structure that took 7 years to develop.  And apparently the slower your internet connection gets, the worse your resolution gets.

It's a cool idea, but I'll have to see it in action.

EDIT:  I think things could go places in online gaming if parts of the game were to be cloud computed (not just tiny bits, either) and other parts computed on the PC itself.  Hell, a system to shift how much is being computed on each side based on latency to keep players from being at advantage/disadvantage for having their internet fuck up.

Latency and bandwidth are two entirely separate beasts.  Bandwidth is not a major issue, but the speed of light fucks this entire endeavor in the ass for anything requiring responsive controls.  The whole thing stinks of another Phantom money-grab against those with too much money and not enough technical savvy.
Logged

Jkid

  • Tested
  • Karma: 0
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Fluffy Clouds
« Reply #11 on: March 26, 2009, 05:50:17 PM »

I heard about Onlive yesterday. It will not stop sales of retail copies of games, but it will bring people who will be turned off from pc gaming due to the cost into gaming without any hassle. Hopefully I will be selected for the beta soon before summer.
Logged

Arc

  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: 0
  • Posts: 3703
    • View Profile
Re: Fluffy Clouds
« Reply #12 on: March 31, 2009, 07:38:18 AM »

Dave Perry announces a similar service is in the works, and more importantly, Sony has trademarked 'PS Cloud", "for use with a cloud computing data center management software, communications software, broadcasting services, and a long list of other terms".

Can't blame them. Installing, updating, cheating, pirating, shipping, disk space limits, hardware costs, and even retail could all be phased out in due time. Now, when will a service pop-up that serves a similar function for computing in general?
Logged

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: Fluffy Clouds
« Reply #13 on: March 31, 2009, 08:07:49 AM »

There was already one in place when I was in college.  Did most of my stats homework on some laggy-ass Excel.
Logged

Saturn

  • Tested
  • Karma: 3
  • Posts: 1670
    • View Profile
Re: Fluffy Clouds
« Reply #14 on: March 31, 2009, 08:12:48 AM »

Unless Onlive figured out quantum teleportation before everyone else, its gonna be a laggy, blurry mess

and then there is their LUDICROUS 1ms latency claim

Also paying for games ON TOP of the monthly fee is just stupid.
Logged

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: Fluffy Clouds
« Reply #15 on: March 31, 2009, 08:20:17 AM »

Also paying for games ON TOP of the monthly fee is just stupid.

Wait, that's seriously their model?

:lol: :fuckyou: :gameover:
Logged

Arc

  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: 0
  • Posts: 3703
    • View Profile
Re: Fluffy Clouds
« Reply #16 on: March 31, 2009, 08:39:54 AM »

I've seen subscription estimates as low as $3.49 a month with a three year contract, but for all we know it could be $19.99 or more. If publishers are interested in seeing such a service take off (they should be) then cutting down prices by $10 and offering Steam-esque sales would be ideal.

nVidia sounds hopeful, and the equation doesn't take a genius to figure out. A mass market of consumers who might upgrade and might buy their product versus a sustaining farm ordering upgrades in bulk. Uncertainty versus certainty.

Their biggest hurdle will be in convincing consumers that the service isn't Super Lagout Fighter X. Because right now? Everyone and their mouth breathing brother is clamoring on about buffering on YouTube, snake oil, and CRYSIS OMG CRYSIS.
Logged

Arc

  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: 0
  • Posts: 3703
    • View Profile
Re: Fluffy Clouds
« Reply #17 on: March 31, 2009, 08:50:49 AM »

And now I'm reading that games could be paid in installments alongside the service, like financing.

Five data centers are currently planned, and I believe the hurdles proposed by journalists are missing key components. Firstly, in terms of numbers, the initial subscriptions won't freakin' equal every gamer on the planet. Duh. Secondly, not everyone will be playing all at once. And lastly, if a contract agreement is required, then much of the hardware will be guaranteed.
Logged

Zaratustra

  • what
  • Tested
  • Karma: 48
  • Posts: 3691
    • View Profile
    • Zaratustra Productions
Re: Fluffy Clouds
« Reply #18 on: March 31, 2009, 09:39:20 AM »

There's just one slight problem with this "cloud-based gaming", in that OnLive does not actually employ cloud computing any more than World of Warcraft does. It's server-side, just that.

jsnlxndrlv

  • Custom Title
  • Tested
  • Karma: 24
  • Posts: 2913
    • View Profile
    • Website title
Re: Fluffy Clouds
« Reply #19 on: March 31, 2009, 09:51:29 AM »

But even World of Warcraft pushes as much content and processing to the consumer as possible; the only things the server handles are multiplayer interactions and a central data store to prevent hacking.  All the graphics and game code are still right there on the user's machine.

If they really have figured out a magical latency solution, then the question here is simply one of economics: does the cost of significantly increased server-side processing outweigh the profits they're making from people who don't want to own these games or the hardware to play them?
Logged
Signature:
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4