"Console killer"?

Xluna

I would'nt fancy it myself.

http://uk.videogames.games.yahoo.com/blog/article/9173/

VinLieger

Old news.
Until i have it in my hands and am playing a multiplayer game without lag or dropouts i dont believe it will kill consoles

Xluna

VinLieger wrote: »

Old news.
Until i have it in my hands and am playing a multiplayer game without lag or dropouts i dont believe it will kill consoles

Plus approx 15 Euros for the service per month,you'd be cheaper getting a console.

DeVore

so its a box, with "joy pads" and an internet connection.... but its not a console.


Whats the difference between this and an XBox bought on credit??

DeV

um7y1h83ge06nx

I reckon it will be another flop, it reminds me of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Phantom_(game_system)

Fingleberries

Xluna wrote: »

Plus approx 15 Euros for the service per month,you'd be cheaper getting a console.

The service is about $15pm that will allow you to play demos, videos and the like. You need to pay more for the games you choose to 'rent' on the system.

The way they are looking to set the system up is that your 'box' at home is simply a dumb terminal (a box that is used to accept input from a device / keyboard, mouse, gamepad, and display output to the screen). All the graphics processing and the like is done on a server in a big data centre somewhere. Because your terminal is doing very little, they believe they can update the servers in the data centres when a new game is released so you don't need to change your terminal.

Interesting that they say a data centre for this cannot be more than 1000 miles from the user (Meaning that Alaska and Hawaii are ruled out of the US for this).

If it really worked, it could be good - you could see it integrated into set-top boxes and the like - but I don't think the infrastructure is there to back it up anywhere at the mo.

DeVore

Analyst hat on.

This is another in the "thin client" vs "thick client" arguments that have raged back and forth for years. Processing power goes up and "thick clients" (laptops, xboxes etc) come into vogue.... then broadband capacity goes up, things like cloud computing (which make the limitations of individual servers dissappear), or Java happen and suddenly its predicted that we will all be living with dumb terminals again (except they'll be called iTerminals and look slick, from Apple probably).

We used to use dumb terminals with mainframes, then it was PCs with "client-server" models, then we were back to browser based "software as a service" and then it was "the PC is personal again!".

The main problem with this is specific idea is that it will be a victim of its own success... if 10 million people use it (10 million being the audience for a decent TV program, so ... not unrealistic if they really want to be successful), then its going to be murdered by its own bandwidth constraints and growing server farms.

If they really think they can ship 60 frames a second high def FPS action to me without lag they are mad imho... but it will be interesting to see.

Personally..... I like my Xbox/PS3 and I like being able to play it even if I dont have an internet connection nearby.

DeV.

koHd

DeVore wrote: »

If they really think they can ship 60 frames a second high def FPS action to me without lag they are mad imho... but it will be interesting to see.


DeV.

Yea defo waiting until it's out there and real people can test it in everyday situations.

But, sending HD video is not the main problem. I think they've actualy acheived it by producing some new highly advanced video compression software. The CEO is a former Quicktime genius or something. Working on video compression software for Quicktime is what gave him the idea.

The main problem is the input lag from the users end. And it doesn't matter the quality of the video, there will always be a certain delay in a button press going from the users computer to a servers computer through the internet.

But I'm really hoping they can pull this off. It would be fantastic.

Console killer...I'm not sure. There will always be the possibility of network issues at any time that can stop your game completely. And if your broadband connection is gone for a period you have no gaming whatsoever...very frustrating. So for that reason there will always be the consoles we're used to in the home that can function without any internet connection.

Xluna

koHd wrote: »

But I'm really hoping they can pull this off. It would be fantastic.

.

I don't know. There's something nice about owning a console and a game. It would kill the excitement of new consoles coming out too.

Grumpypants

This has one major draw back and that is that the people willing to pay 15 dollars a month to game are serious gamers. So much so that they all ready prob own a PC,360 or PS3.

If you all ready own one of these machines will you pay an extra 15 dollars a month to play games that are the same games already availible on the machines you own?

Maybe if they get a jump on next gen games that the PS3 or xbox cant handle then it will become more attractive. Until then i cant see this being a major success. Not at that price any way as others have said you could just buy a console on HP and at least then you have something pysical at the end of the 2 years.

landsleaving

DeVore wrote: »

Analyst hat on.

Personally..... I like my Xbox/PS3 and I like being able to play it even if I dont have an internet connection nearby.

DeV.

I think this is going to be the stumbling block for most people. My internet connection isn't reliable enough that I'd only play online. It works 99% of the time but what about the 1% when it falls just as I'm about to sit down to a game. I'd be put right off the service.

Another problem is 'renting' games isn't something I would like. What if I want to play it in a few years time, as I often do with my PS1 or Dreamcast, will it ven still be available? I at least own the product with music or movie downloads.

I can see it takling off with the casual crowd who play fifa and the odd shooter, but the early adopters are the hardcore gamers and I can't see them jumping on this at launch, and that could kill the product immediately by removing any user base.

On a related note, I used a similar service to watch NFL games, it streamed full HD live games and when it worked it was fantastic. Unfortunately for the first 3 weeks of 17 weeks season (playoffs cost extra) it didn't work at all. I got a refund for the time lost, but I wanted to watch it, not avoid paying! Another week my internet connection was down and I missed out. That experience would put me off anything like that in the future tbh.

Tea 1000

koHd wrote: »

Yea defo waiting until it's out there and real people can test it in everyday situations.

But, sending HD video is not the main problem. I think they've actualy acheived it by producing some new highly advanced video compression software. The CEO is a former Quicktime genius or something. Working on video compression software for Quicktime is what gave him the idea.

The main problem is the input lag from the users end. And it doesn't matter the quality of the video, there will always be a certain delay in a button press going from the users computer to a servers computer through the internet.

But I'm really hoping they can pull this off. It would be fantastic.

Console killer...I'm not sure. There will always be the possibility of network issues at any time that can stop your game completely. And if your broadband connection is gone for a period you have no gaming whatsoever...very frustrating. So for that reason there will always be the consoles we're used to in the home that can function without any internet connection.

I'd say this is the way forward alright, but not yet. Our broadband in most places isn't sufficient yet, and as mentioned by koHd the input lag will rule out hardcore gamers. When I was choosing my TV I was amazed at the amount of gamers actually criticising various TV's because of the lag from the TV receiving the signal and actually displaying it, let alone having that signal come from miles away!! But like everything this has to start somewhere, so good to see alternatives being explored.
Processors are getting so good now that in 10 years time your "dumb terminal" console could be as powerful as current consoles, and you could play 70% of the games on it, and you hook up to the on-line service and use their servers for the last 30% of games with the ultra-high processing requirements. Kind of like the Super Nintendo's FX chip that came on the cartridge, this will work in a similar way.
That's just one way of thinking about it though. I work in the IT industry and cloud computing is definitely the way of the future. Eventually it will simplify everything.