Xbox 720 and PS4 will be the last traditional home consoles, says Nvidia

Arrow in the Knee

Helix wrote: »

if that's your download speed rather than your line speed it should be fine for cloud gaming

600-700kbps is my line speed.

And they call that broadband speed!!! :pac: :pac:

Myrddin

Helix wrote: »

the vast majority of people playing current gen games DO have access to a residential internet connection. 78% of playstation 3s ever bought are online. factor in ylod machines, and the percentage of ps3 owners online is even higher. 73% of xbox 360s bought are online. factor in rrod machines (of which there were many) and you've got a huge online adoption rate.

people always throw out things like developing countries when it comes to cloud gaming negatives. newsflash - people in developing countries who can afford consoles have the internet, people in developing countries who don't have the internet, can't afford consoles

sony, nintendo and microsoft don't give a toss about developing nations. that's not where they make their money. their income comes from people who are already armed with capable internet connections

I think you need to come back Ireland for a while, maybe spend a week or two in Killarney or something & come back to us It's pretty shocking here outside of Dublin in many places

ScumLord

Arrow in the Knee wrote: »

Sure its all in the cloud :pac:

The obvious downside is that if you want to play a game you need very good broadband connection to access the cloud to play the game.

At home I'm getting 600-700kbps broadband speed so it would be unrealistic for me to play in the cloud.

Ye're still all making the mistake of saying it won't work because look at my broadband now. It would be like dismissing mobile computing 10 years ago because the hardwares to big and there's no wireless internet options at all.

We'll soon have 4G which will be followed by 5G, the internet infrastructure is always being upgraded and in 10 years time you'll probably have a redundant system that has the option of multiple possibilities for connecting to the internet.

10 years is an awful long time in technology, ten years from now our world will look as different to us as it looked ten years ago.

Myrddin

ScumLord wrote: »

ten years from now our world will look as different to us as it looked ten years ago.

More reliable consoles, more privacy/less online intrusion, you got physical media, and facebook was where it belonged. Here's to 2002!

Joking aside though, fibre to the home is the future...not 4/5G. Trust Ireland to be heading in the wrong direction

hightower1

Helix wrote: »

the vast majority of people playing current gen games DO have access to a residential internet connection. 78% of playstation 3s ever bought are online. factor in ylod machines, and the percentage of ps3 owners online is even higher. 73% of xbox 360s bought are online. factor in rrod machines (of which there were many) and you've got a huge online adoption rate.

people always throw out things like developing countries when it comes to cloud gaming negatives. newsflash - people in developing countries who can afford consoles have the internet, people in developing countries who don't have the internet, can't afford consoles

sony, nintendo and microsoft don't give a toss about developing nations. that's not where they make their money. their income comes from people who are already armed with capable internet connections

Even if your figures are correct that still a loss of over 25% of the current userbase. Id challenge anyone one to pitch a business model to any large company that proposes a 25% user base loss over their current model. Bear in mind too that the console manufacturers actually stand to gain very little from this whole endeavor. The will make a small percentage on hosting the developers games on their ecosystems but a large chunk of that will have to go back into the massive rise in cost of maintaining that eco system (security, huge server banks located in many sites per country to keep latency down, routing and peering costs etc).

So if the console manufacturers dont gain enough from this, they loose at least 25% of their userbase, the consumer looses the flexibility of physical media being able to be traded, and consumer spending gets more conservative....who DOES win from all this? - Developers.

For developers its the easy way out, passing the buck as it were. Instead of providing long lasting, high quality and engaging single / MP experiences they look at the problem being people trading in games where in actual fact the problem is their making games that people WANT to trade in.

Its easy for devs to say "oh if sony or microsoft made only online consoles we'd stop trade ins" because all the work is up to someone else, the consumers pay the price and the manufactures that the userbase hit.

Take borderlands as an example, an excellent single player game thats long lasting and engaging. I will most definitely be holding on to this and pick up DLC as it comes because I know they released excellent DLC for borderlands While I didnt play that game or its DLC I am confident it will enhance my experience. Creating games like this is why people hold on to discs and it would serve some in the industry far better to learn by their example rather than look at manufacturers and tyr blame the use of trade-able media for their own short comings.


NB- also your not taking into account broadband network demographics. If one doesnt have broadband of a reasonable quality they dont necessarily have to be living in a third world country. Ireland is a prime example of this due to the geographical layout and population dispersion. Its cost effective to roll out a decent fiber network to a densely populated area but as the population becomes more dispersed your costs increase and uptake / revenue return drops so many companies simply wont bring a network to areas that the cost outweighs the benefit. Ireland is hardly third world but there are larges sections of the population that cannot get decent broadband but are more than able to purchase (and do) games consoles. Mid America is in a very similar situation as too are any countries with significant populations dispersed oved large areas away from main cities.

Helix

Magill wrote: »

Yeah.. until someone starts watching youtube videos or downloading movies. Im on a 60 meg connection and it becomes impossible to play online games once someone starts downloading.

that's your own internal network problem though. limit downloads to 500-700kb/sec less than your line's maximum and you'll have absolutely no problems

it baffles me that people roll out the whole "oh sure i cant play when people are downloading" thing. of course you bloody can't, the downloads are set up to use ALL the bandwidth available ffs. you could have a 1gb line and you'll still have the same issue

Helix

hightower1 wrote: »

Even if your figures are correct that still a loss of over 25% of the current userbase. Id challenge anyone one to pitch a business model to any large company that proposes a 25% user base loss over their current model. Bear in mind too that the console manufacturers actually stand to gain very little from this whole endeavor. The will make a small percentage on hosting the developers games on their ecosystems but a large chunk of that will have to go back into the massive rise in cost of maintaining that eco system (security, huge server banks located in many sites per country to keep latency down, routing and peering costs etc).

So if the console manufacturers dont gain enough from this, they loose at least 25% of their userbase, the consumer looses the flexibility of physical media being able to be traded, and consumer spending gets more conservative....who DOES win from all this? - Developers.

For developers its the easy way out, passing the buck as it were. Instead of providing long lasting, high quality and engaging single / MP experiences they look at the problem being people trading in games where in actual fact the problem is their making games that people WANT to trade in.

Its easy for devs to say "oh if sony or microsoft made only online consoles we'd stop trade ins" because all the work is up to someone else, the consumers pay the price and the manufactures that the userbase hit.

Take borderlands as an example, an excellent single player game thats long lasting and engaging. I will most definitely be holding on to this and pick up DLC as it comes because I know they released excellent DLC for borderlands While I didnt play that game or its DLC I am confident it will enhance my experience. Creating games like this is why people hold on to discs and it would serve some in the industry far better to learn by their example rather than look at manufacturers and tyr blame the use of trade-able media for their own short comings.


NB- also your not taking into account broadband network demographics. If one doesnt have broadband of a reasonable quality they dont necessarily have to be living in a third world country. Ireland is a prime example of this due to the geographical layout and population dispersion. Its cost effective to roll out a decent fiber network to a densely populated area but as the population becomes more dispersed your costs increase and uptake / revenue return drops so many companies simply wont bring a network to areas that the cost outweighs the benefit. Ireland is hardly third world but there are larges sections of the population that cannot get decent broadband but are more than able to purchase (and do) games consoles. Mid America is in a very similar situation as too are any countries with significant populations dispersed oved large areas away from main cities.

console manufacturers wouldn't have to pay to manufacture consoles. they wouldn't have to pay the associated r&d costs. they wouldn't have to pay the distribution costs.

they WOULD get the same licensing fees as before. they WOULD get the same cut of title's hosted on their online services. they WOULD get the same subscription fees

Retr0gamer

Helix wrote: »

console manufacturers wouldn't have to pay to manufacture consoles. they wouldn't have to pay the associated r&d costs. they wouldn't have to pay the distribution costs.

they WOULD get the same licensing fees as before. they WOULD get the same cut of title's hosted on their online services. they WOULD get the same subscription fees

They would have to pay to keep a huge server bank of top of the range machines. When a console comes out it's usually the same power as the top of the range PC. I've heard with Onlive even running the games at such low detail settings they were still using one machine per connected customer. It's hardly economical, especially with with the demands customers will want for a next generation machine. Rendering these games isn't free and neither is the network infrastructure.

ScumLord

EnterNow wrote: »

Joking aside though, fibre to the home is the future...not 4/5G. Trust Ireland to be heading in the wrong direction

I was just using 5G as an example of what's to come. With a network of 5G, DSL, Fiber,. You'll be able to use any and all of them when they're available to you and they will have become more available in ten years.

hightower1 wrote: »

Even if your figures are correct that still a loss of over 25% of the current userbase. Id challenge anyone one to pitch a business model to any large company that proposes a 25% user base loss over their current model.

It' doesn't have to be a case of one or the other they can add it as an online service alongside consoles. You could have xbox live ready devices like your smart tele. The tele would have bluetooth so could pick up xbox controllers. At the end of the day if you have access to your games and can play them as well as you would be able to on a specialised piece of hardware what does it matter how they're delivered?

BizzyC

Won't happen for at least another 10 years...

When you look around the world there isn't a consistent global market of people who would have access to the internet connections reliable and fast enough to support cloud gaming on that scale.

I for one wouldn't put my gaming in the hands of an isp or an online service. I like having local hardware cause I always have the option of playing offline when these things fail.

death1234567

EnterNow wrote: »

If the service goes down - YOU have no access to YOUR games.
If your connection does down - YOU have no access to YOUR games.

Not that anyone ever does but IIRC if your read the EULA for most/all of your games you'll find out that you don't own any of them. You just buy the rights to use them, EA/Valve/etc. own the game.

People get way too anixous about what happens when my ISP goes down/server goes down and I can't play my games. I still want my overheating hardware box in the corner of the room so I can play hello kitty island adventure 9, Kitty's motherf&*king revenge, offline. Well what happens when there's a powercut in your house? Do you freak out at your electricity supplier or do you just sit there staring at the walls, brooding until the power comes back. You just sit there because you realise that your electricity supplier doesn't give two ****s that you had no power for 5 hours. Gaming companies like Sony and Microsoft aren't going to care if your ISP goes down for a few hours and you can't play some games, why? Because in 10 years the uptime/speeds/reliablity of internet connections for 99% of their customers, in the markets that matter, will mean that this is a non-issue.

Deano7788

death1234567 wrote: »

Not that anyone ever does but IIRC if your read the EULA for most/all of your games you'll find out that you don't own any of them. You just buy the rights to use them, EA/Valve/etc. own the game.

People get way too anixous about what happens when my ISP goes down/server goes down and I can't play my games. I still want my overheating hardware box in the corner of the room so I can play hello kitty island adventure 9, Kitty's motherf&*king revenge, offline. Well what happens when there's a powercut in your house? Do you freak out at your electricity supplier or do you just sit there staring at the walls, brooding until the power comes back. You just sit there because you realise that your electricity supplier doesn't give two ****s that you had no power for 5 hours. Gaming companies like Sony and Microsoft aren't going to care if your ISP goes down for a few hours and you can't play some games, why? Because in 10 years the uptime/speeds/reliablity of internet connections for 99% of their customers, in the markets that matter, will mean that this is a non-issue.

I'd go and play on a handheld. :P

Myrddin

death1234567 wrote: »

Not that anyone ever does but IIRC if your read the EULA for most/all of your games you'll find out that you don't own any of them. You just buy the rights to use them, EA/Valve/etc. own the game.

By own, I mean own the same way I do my Super Nintendo & Megadrive carts. They're mine, nobody can take them away from me, I can play them when I want, how I want, if I want & basically they're just mine. Now, attribute to that whatever term or definition of 'owning' you want, but it's fine by me.

People get way too anixous about what happens when my ISP goes down/server goes down and I can't play my games. I still want my overheating hardware box in the corner of the room so I can play hello kitty island adventure 9, Kitty's motherf&*king revenge, offline. Well what happens when there's a powercut in your house? Do you freak out at your electricity supplier or do you just sit there staring at the walls, brooding until the power comes back. You just sit there because you realise that your electricity supplier doesn't give two ****s that you had no power for 5 hours. Gaming companies like Sony and Microsoft aren't going to care if your ISP goes down for a few hours and you can't play some games, why? Because in 10 years the uptime/speeds/reliablity of internet connections for 99% of their customers, in the markets that matter, will mean that this is a non-issue.

Are you suggesting your electricity goes down as much if not more than your internet service? You really should get that checked out