What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
162 Comments
- crownedgriffin, on 03/24/2009, -10/+71Oh yes, I'd love some latency and video compression to go with my video games. That sounds wonderful. Not.
Also, maybe I *like* the "endless cycle of new CPUs, motherboards, and graphics cards." - JQP123, on 03/24/2009, -6/+62Great idea to take advantage of all that spare, unused, imaginery bandwidth that everyone has available.
- pookguy88, on 03/24/2009, -13/+63This has fail written all over it
- Meyithi, on 03/24/2009, -4/+44Considering ISP's worldwide are now "shaping" traffic during peak hours, I don't think this will take off :)
- synep, on 03/24/2009, -2/+42Does this remind anyone else of the Phantom?
- freshgrease, on 03/24/2009, -5/+36For the technically-challenged this sounds wonderful. To the technically-able this sounds retarded.
Besides, the thrill of building bleeding edge computers is so worth the price. - Xeth, on 03/24/2009, -2/+30Heh, yeah, I bet every single programmer/gamer out there at some point has thought of this idea, and then 10 seconds later realized how stupid it was due to latency and bandwidth requirements. This might work for casual games that don't require fast response times but those don't have high system requirements anyway.
- Solkre, on 03/24/2009, -1/+26This will be great now that Comcast put a cap on my bandwidth.
- goeric, on 03/24/2009, -0/+21It's an insanely cool concept, and I know he says there is no input lag, but I just don't see that being true. People already complain about input lag on >5ms monitors.
- theaceoffire, on 03/24/2009, -1/+21Then it will look like a Youtube video.
Retard. - inactive, on 03/24/2009, -0/+15Oh, it's real, it's just being held in safe keeping by Comcast in a tin shed in Poughkeepsie, NY.
- muzfuz, on 03/24/2009, -0/+15In in a controlled environment.
- phpchris, on 03/24/2009, -0/+14I really like this idea, but what I don't like is that it basically takes away any control of the actual game the user has. I suppose that could be a reason why publishers would go for it.
Edit:
Here's some videos of one of the developers talking about it
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/47080.html
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/47082.html - danwallace, on 03/24/2009, -1/+15"Steam implemented the Steam Cloud, which allowed users to store configuration data, so you're games would all run in the same way, no matter which system you were using."
Do they have editors for these articles? - manicdvln, on 03/24/2009, -5/+19Nice Trojan Horse, sorry but I don't want to pay for a console, then pay to access the service, then also pay for a game that I DONT PHYSICALLY OWN, and have to pay for the internet to play offline single player games.
Pretty much, you cant lend your games to your friends, no resale value forl your games and if you don't feel like playing, you still pay.
Pretty much if you support this system you sold your soul to the devil. - inactive, on 03/24/2009, -0/+14I got it pre-ordered, they said to wait like 1 to 2 business years.
- geoffg, on 03/24/2009, -5/+18It's an awesome idea...assuming there's no laaaaag.
- birch25, on 03/24/2009, -2/+15This idea reeks of being cooler in concept than in actuality. I anticipate this either being vaporware or having big problems with lag and becoming unplayable. Also, a monthly fee PLUS individual game payments is the wrong way to go. I feel that's too high a barrier of entry for a new service like this.
Then again, I could be totally wrong and this will be the next big thing in gaming, but things like this never seem to pan out as hoped for (anyone remember the Phantom?). - BuckCynnie, on 03/24/2009, -0/+13Give it ten years and there may be a good market for it, you can't deny that having a server farm doing your processing for you wouldn't be awesome. But, for now, the latency issues along with graphic compression would make the gaming experience for the average to enthusiast very underwhelming. It will be great for kids games and simple puzzle games, but we can already do that through our browsers.
- wolfing, on 03/24/2009, -1/+13I'd say it's just a temporary fail. Give it some 10 years and I do see it as the future of gaming
- MajinAku, on 03/24/2009, -3/+15"At least, that's dream of Steve Perlman and Mike McGarvey of OnLive."
And it'll stay a dream too. - kingmanic, on 03/24/2009, -0/+11This is essentially how some games like pixel junk monsters on the PS3 are played on the PSP. The PSP is a dumb terminal sending user feedback to the PS3 while the PS3 produces images and sends them to the PSP. (future patent problems for this start up?)
This works fine when you have a fairly low res screen to fill and moderate amounts of free bandwidth at home. This will not work well scaled into a latency filled low bandwidth Internet trying to fill a full screen monitor or HDTV. - killdashnine, on 03/24/2009, -1/+11Doubtful. You can already download games. Steam does a good job with distribution.
The concern I have is LAG. With the state of Broadband in the US, this is going to be extremely hard ... possibly a complete failure like the Phantom. Time will tell. - evil-doer, on 03/24/2009, -0/+9if this company can encode and transmit 720p video games with no buffering it should just focus on this "magic" for video streaming and drop the games. ive never seen this done. (theres obviously no buffering because it would make any game unplayable due to lag)
even using the latest in codecs when i try to steam wmv or quicktime vids that are 720p it needs many many seconds of buffering and STILL it often needs to stop in the middle and rebuffer. seriously. this is either pure lies or the quality is horrendous or its vaporware. - SpectralSounds, on 03/24/2009, -0/+8Ben Affleck was the bomb in Phantoms, Yo?
- kingmanic, on 03/24/2009, -0/+8Latency would make it unplayable for any except turn based strategy games. Even in japan the speed of light exists. this means lag unless you put one of your suped up machines at the home of each user. A poor LCD refresh rate of 12-20ms can render many games unplayable imagine the 20ms-100ms of network latency on top of that. Crysis is an FPS which is a genre that is very very sensitive to lag. This would make absolutely no sense as the highest requirement games also require as little lag as possible.
- Barackalypse, on 03/24/2009, -2/+9Do you have any idea how much bandwidth that will use to send the video streams? I game at 1680x1050 in 32 bit color and lets say 30 frames per second:
1680x1050x32x30 = 1,693 Mbps. Now, they can get 100:1 compression on video streams these days, so we need only 16.93 Mbps. Unfortunately for them, my cable Internet speed is only 8 Mbps. Oh, and I just bought a 1920x1080 monitor. - SilentKayos, on 03/24/2009, -7/+14Sounds like an April Fool's joke to me...
- teamr, on 03/24/2009, -2/+9Phantom was the definition of vaporware. This, on the other hand, already has the backing of some huge publishers, and is playable and impressive (according to some early reviews) at this year's GDC.
- Btcc222, on 03/24/2009, -2/+8The press reports I've seen took place in a controlled environment, not on the Internet.
Let's see somebody from the UK and the US play against each other on this service during peak time and see how well it runs then.
Besides, even if we ignore the fact that the Internet probably won't allow for this in the vast majority of places, how are they going to profit when they'd probably need a gaming spec machine for every player that's on their service? If the had users that spent several hours every evening gaming (extremely common) on the latest titles then hardware costs are going to be through the roof. Do they plan on charging £60 a month for this service or something?
Finally, I'm not sure how accurate some of the info is, but apparently the box that plugs into your television will cost more than an Xbox 360.
Everybody's thought of this idea at some point before and quickly dismissed it, and for good reasons. - Stewart21, on 03/24/2009, -1/+7But can it run Crys... oh *****... it can on a netbook?!?!?!
- theaceoffire, on 03/24/2009, -0/+6I would respond, but I hit Comcast's cap for this month (Played 8 min of Crysis.)
- tobor0, on 03/24/2009, -0/+6@diocles:
Do you work for OnLive or something? - Barackalypse, on 03/24/2009, -0/+6If it looks anything like iTunes 720p does at 4 Mbps, its not acceptable.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=962 - Stewart21, on 03/24/2009, -4/+10But can it run Crys... oh *****... it can on a netbook?!?!?!
- RegalBegal, on 03/24/2009, -1/+7No offen......*buffering*
- Xeth, on 03/24/2009, -2/+8No, it is not feasible for things like FPS's even if you're running it locally on a Gigabit network. People already notice and whine about monitors/mice having an extra few ms of lag. You try to get 30fps 720p video data through a network stack and decompression algorithms you'll get more than a few ms, thats not even counting the time it takes for the data to make it to your ethernet jack.
- MajinAku, on 03/24/2009, -0/+6So basically you have to run all your games in the resolution I was running my PC games at in the mid-90's.
- MajinAku, on 03/24/2009, -0/+5Yes, and that guarantees success. /s
- inactive, on 03/24/2009, -0/+5It's not gonna replace ownership, obviously, but I do see a market for it, like with Gametap - provided the price is right. Besides, come on, if they were to actually pull it off, it'd be impressive, at least on a technical level. As for myself, I'm interested in it, if only to catch up on some games I've missed out on because of my crappy computer, like Bioshock.
- acdcfanbill, on 03/24/2009, -1/+6The consumer is still going to have to pay for the 'endless cycle of upgrades' since someone is going to have to buy all the hardware at the rendering locations.
- Equinox1, on 03/25/2009, -0/+5And you work for them right? Because you seem to know the way they work inside out. Perhaps you don't know jack ***** about the way their hardware and servers will work. I'm sure you didn't factor in the fact that there are a lot of people in the United States that don't even have that 5mbit connection to stream 720p, or the fact that comcast are ***** who cap bandwith and using this service as much as the ordinary CoD nerd does, that cap can easily be hit. Take that stick out your ass and stop pretending you know everything, because you simply don't.
There are many possible logistical issues as stated above and we don't know how it will play out because the service isn't available yet. - MajinAku, on 03/24/2009, -1/+5That's the most absurd part about all this. No need to buy hardware upgrades anymore, we'll do it for you! You'll just be paying us an upfront cost for OUR hardware that we'll never ever release upgrades to (we swear) plus a monthly fee (so we can afford said upgrades, remember WE'RE buying these, not you!) and then you're locked into crappy nerfed versions of the same new games your rich friends are playing on their REAL computers! (Sorry, you still can't play with them though, but who would want to?)
It's the future!! - qwertydvorak, on 03/25/2009, -0/+4"It takes about as much bandwidth as a Youtube video."
you mean it takes 1.5 Mbit connection for standard res, and 5 Mbit connection for 720p. that is pretty hefty. and considering that tons of people play games at 1080p or 1920x1200 resolution it would only get worse. - NeoTechni, on 03/25/2009, -1/+5You also need to take a bandwidth course to realize that this technology is horribly far fetched and flawed. You can test for yourself how poorly this would via PS3s remote play
- inactive, on 03/24/2009, -2/+6Yet another grid to get attached to. I would beware of cloud computing. Listen to Richard Stallman. He knows what he's talking about when he says cloud computing is a trap.
- RegalBegal, on 03/24/2009, -5/+9Someone on Digg involved with this company? This isn't going to do ANYTHING to console gaming. Sorry. You can even refer to this comment when it does in fact fail.
- kingmanic, on 03/24/2009, -1/+5"If we can collectively get over the hurdle of latency, this sort of thing IS the future."
Latency is a insurmountable hurdle. You can't speed things up past the speed of light so even using fibre end to end with a terabit bandwidth you are going to run into 12ms-30ms by virtue of the distance with another 1ms-10ms for the network stacks and then what ever latency the lcd has. In real life you'd have 50-200ms for the actual network. Just boot up a FPS and play it on a crappy 20ms lcd and see how that isn't going to work. You can't just "get over it". The only real need for power is in 3d gaming and 3d gaming is highly sensitive to latency. Most FPS deal with multiplay latency by anticipating where the player will be when the packets arrive on the other end. You can't really do that with the game graphics. It would be a mess. - inactive, on 03/24/2009, -0/+4In theory, makes sense. Only the players control input needs to be captured remotely and the game's video output displayed locally. The heavy processing can be done away somewhere in an underwater data center deep in the Pacific.
But getting this all to sync up reliably and stream stable and clear is an enormous challenge. And the horsepower required at these data centers would be light years beyond what websites require. Imagine the current top-of-the-line CPU/GPU PC combination and multiply that by several 10s (or 100s) of thousand - in the same data center! Sequoia supercomputer, eat your heart out. - MajinAku, on 03/24/2009, -0/+4Yea, for 5 minutes.... 15 miles away from a server.... with virtually no one else taxing the server at the same time wanting to play as well.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 165 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is