Activision wishes to abolish consoles, migrate entirely to PC

[Purkake]

Interesting, but it's still much better than what I thought when I first heard about it.

 

The technology has potential.

 

And it is much worse than i have thought ... average latency of ~180ms on 25Mbps Fibers??? Don't make me laugh...

The other guy who was talking about it (on the Exploding Barrel podcast, I think) said he was able to play the new Prince of Persia just fine.

 

Having 25Mb doesn't give you better latency, it just removes the potential cap that a slower connection might inflict. The signal still has to move through all the connecting servers and whatnot.

 

Also, I think the OnLive guys said that having the server farms was not a problem, they have some dedicated thing going with help from nVidia or another big hardware company.

[Mamoulian War]

I know, how latency works, i was speaking more about the cap for high resolution gaming... And tell me why i have to be happy with just fine input lag of 150+ ms, if i can have the same game on PC with 1.5xFullHD resolution on PC or FullHD resolution on PS3 with input lag of max 5ms and even pay monthly fee for such a service???

Edited July 8, 2010 by Mamoulian War

[Purkake]

Did I say you have to be happy with it or even take any interest in it at all?

 

I said it has potential. Being able to play super pretty games on netbooks, tablets, HDTVs without having to mess around with a console is a pretty good concept.

 

And as for input lag, read this article

 

CoD4 67ms

GTA4 133ms-200ms

Killzone 150ms (Patched version)

Halo3 100ms Shooting/150ms Jumping

Guitar Hero 50ms

 

Obviously the OnLive lag comes on top of that, but to put things into perspective games already have way more than 5ms input lag.

[Mamoulian War]

Did I say you have to be happy with it or even take any interest in it at all?

 

I said it has potential. Being able to play super pretty games on netbooks, tablets, HDTVs without having to mess around with a console is a pretty good concept.

 

And as for input lag, read this article

 

CoD4 67ms

GTA4 133ms-200ms

Killzone 150ms (Patched version)

Halo3 100ms Shooting/150ms Jumping

Guitar Hero 50ms

 

Obviously the OnLive lag comes on top of that, but to put things into perspective games already have way more than 5ms input lag.

 

then we have misunderstood again that 5ms of lag is the lag of the refresh rate of your TV/monitor only... i was not talking about graphics lag, which you are mentioning at all But ye, i should have been much clearer about it i think

Edited July 8, 2010 by Mamoulian War

[Purkake]

Right, so anyway, I see potential.

 

You are in no way obligated to run out and subscribe, or even care.

[Mamoulian War]

You are in no way obligated to run out and subscribe, or even care.

 

OMG I shall not care about something posted on TEH INTERNET? blasphemy!!!

[Slowtrain]

It's just greed, but if the greed works in my favor, then I'm all for it.

 

An online-only process for even single player games for which I can use my pc is preferable to me over any current console solution.

[Purkake]

You are in no way obligated to run out and subscribe, or even care.

 

OMG I shall not care about something posted on TEH INTERNET? blasphemy!!!

Well, you acted like I was forcing you to subscribe at gunpoint.

[Raithe]

You are in no way obligated to run out and subscribe, or even care.

 

OMG I shall not care about something posted on TEH INTERNET? blasphemy!!!

Well, you acted like I was forcing you to subscribe at gunpoint.

 

For lo, there will come a day when someone invents a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet...

[Mamoulian War]

You are in no way obligated to run out and subscribe, or even care.

 

OMG I shall not care about something posted on TEH INTERNET? blasphemy!!!

Well, you acted like I was forcing you to subscribe at gunpoint.

 

You did not?

[entrerix]

Im not interested in an onlive type thing that costs more than netflix.

 

Im not interested in an onlive type thing that has over 17ms of input latency

 

Im not interested in any gaming solution that requires being online to play single player games

 

I have a feeling its going to be hard for me to be a gamer in ten years

[Purkake]

You are in no way obligated to run out and subscribe, or even care.

 

OMG I shall not care about something posted on TEH INTERNET? blasphemy!!!

Well, you acted like I was forcing you to subscribe at gunpoint.

 

You did not?

Go back and read your post instead of being all incredulous.

[mkreku]

I'm hanging out on a forum where most people seem to hate Fallout 3 because it's not turn based (ie. input lag means jack ****) anymore.. then I find this thread with the very same people whining about potentially having 150-200ms of input lag in their games.

[Thorton_AP]

Interesting, but it's still much better than what I thought when I first heard about it.

 

The technology has potential.

 

And it is much worse than i have thought ... average latency of ~180ms on 25Mbps Fibers??? Don't make me laugh...

 

 

I'd be more curious how it'd still run on 10 Mbps connection. Giving it a 4000000 Mbps connection isn't going to make the latency very low if you have half an understanding of how networking works.

[LadyCrimson]

From the article:

One does have to real

[Mamoulian War]

Interesting, but it's still much better than what I thought when I first heard about it.

 

The technology has potential.

 

And it is much worse than i have thought ... average latency of ~180ms on 25Mbps Fibers??? Don't make me laugh...

 

 

I'd be more curious how it'd still run on 10 Mbps connection. Giving it a 4000000 Mbps connection isn't going to make the latency very low if you have half an understanding of how networking works.

 

 

read few posts up... i know how it works... But if you have 1Mbps connection for Onlive, your latency in 720p will go into the heaven, because, you do not have enough bandwidth to get all the required data... For awesome latenscy you need to be close to the server and have enough bandwidth to handle all the data... read 1st all the posts before you point at someone with "stupid" sign... thank you...

[Purkake]

You need at least 5Mbs for 720p as per OnLive's requirements.

[Mamoulian War]

You need at least 5Mbs for 720p as per OnLive's requirements.

 

That's why I am saying, that your latency will go skyhigh with 1Mbps... *sighs*

[Thorton_AP]

read few posts up... i know how it works... But if you have 1Mbps connection for Onlive, your latency in 720p will go into the heaven, because, you do not have enough bandwidth to get all the required data... For awesome latenscy you need to be close to the server and have enough bandwidth to handle all the data... read 1st all the posts before you point at someone with "stupid" sign... thank you...

 

I did read all the posts. If you understand latency, then why'd you make a post that would infer I should ascribe various "signs" to you?

 

720p at 32-bit color is already going to exceed even the 25Mbps connection's bandwidth without data compression (it's about 30 million bits for a single frame).

 

Obviously there is data compression involved, which is why I'd be curious how it runs at a lower bandwidth. Because this would actually allow me to infer if the latency at 25 Mbps is due to the bandwidth, or the latency of going through server switches and/or any other restrictions on the latency.

 

 

Stating "And it is much worse than i have thought ... average latency of ~180ms on 25Mbps Fibers??? Don't make me laugh..." without any other frame of references literally indicates that you feel bandwidth is the sole contributor of the latency.

 

You don't have enough information to make a "don't make me laugh" comment, yet you did. Bravo /clap

 

 

 

That's why I am saying, that your latency will go skyhigh with 1Mbps... *sighs*

 

You're the only one that brought up 1 Mbps. No kidding the service will suck if you are below the requirements. I'm sure today's games don't run on my TNT2 Ultra very well either! *sigh*

Edited July 8, 2010 by Thorton_AP

[Mamoulian War]

read few posts up... i know how it works... But if you have 1Mbps connection for Onlive, your latency in 720p will go into the heaven, because, you do not have enough bandwidth to get all the required data... For awesome latenscy you need to be close to the server and have enough bandwidth to handle all the data... read 1st all the posts before you point at someone with "stupid" sign... thank you...

 

I did read all the posts. If you understand latency, then why'd you make a post that would infer I should ascribe various "signs" to you?

 

720p at 32-bit color is already going to exceed even the 25Mbps connection's bandwidth without data compression (it's about 30 million bits for a single frame).

 

Obviously there is data compression involved, which is why I'd be curious how it runs at a lower bandwidth. Because this would actually allow me to infer if the latency at 25 Mbps is due to the bandwidth, or the latency of going through server switches and/or any other restrictions on the latency.

 

 

Stating "And it is much worse than i have thought ... average latency of ~180ms on 25Mbps Fibers??? Don't make me laugh..." without any other frame of references literally indicates that you feel bandwidth is the sole contributor of the latency.

 

You don't have enough information to make a "don't make me laugh" comment, yet you did. Bravo /clap

 

 

 

That's why I am saying, that your latency will go skyhigh with 1Mbps... *sighs*

 

You're the only one that brought up 1 Mbps. No kidding the service will suck if you are below the requirements. I'm sure today's games don't run on my TNT2 Ultra very well either! *sigh*

 

And you are making mistake, that you think that everyone on the earth without the need of posting 2 pages long essay about how speed of light cannot be overdone, and therefore you can't get faster latency with your 1Gbps fiber, does not have a clue about the stuff he is talking about... the faster bandwith contributes to lower latency as well, because you have more bandwith assigned to the same number of data. therefore you have lower chance of collisions and lower chance of your packets getting re-routed through some L3 device in Malaysia, while traveling from your home computer to the OnLive server...

 

thank you for your understanding...

Edited July 8, 2010 by Mamoulian War

[Humodour]

Not unless they can get the lag from OnLive below 200ms.

Actually, speaking of OnLive, they have a limited beta thing going and I've heard from a few people that it is actually playable without any more noticeable lag than normal online gaming. The bigger problem is really the fact that you actually have to buy all the games ala Steam before you can play them via OnLive in addition to a subscription fee.

 

Not that it's coming to Australia anytime soon, but looks like the thing actually works.

 

As an Australian I can verify that any game with around 200ms lag is completely playable (and in fact, the lag is not visible). But for a lot of yanks and euros, 200ms is going to be a deal-breaker, even if it doesn't impact on gameplay.

 

I imagine it'll come to Australia pretty quickly. Australia is a large, very wealthy market with lots of gamers and a 100mbps fibre to the home network being rolled out as we speak. I don't say this out of a sense of entitlement, just from observation of business musings on Australia. Aus is also a hub for tech support and customer service for the Asia region due to our time offset (tech support centres in Europe and America are asleep, so they build centres here to cater to Asian timezones).

[Purkake]

That's good to hear, I've played stuff with ~150ms lag and lived to tell the tale.

 

As for the Australia comment, I meant that OnLive would have to set up servers there and that their probably going to expand in the US and then probably Europe before reaching Australia, obviously this is just wild speculation on my part.

[Walsingham]

I've never liked the way the consoles have the capacity to choke off developers. Nor do I like the way that console only households are left without the open capability a PC can give you. A PC is a workhorse, not a trick pony. So yes, I think it's good. Although I agree it's profit driven.

[Amentep]

I don't like the fiddletyness of PC's, personally. Yes a computer can do A LOT of things. Many of them involving you sitting for hours trying to figure out why your program, your CPU, your periphrials, and your installed components seem to have a pre-standing grudge against one another and refuse to talk.

 

The advantage of the console is that when I buy a game on a console, I know its going to work on the console without spending any time (or money) troubleshooting or replacing obsolete parts.

 

That said, Activision wants a "plug and play" PC alternative which would be the ideal - take the frustration of having to fiddle with your PC to get it to work, make games so you don't have to upgrade your PC every 6 months to play them and I think the PC will become viable again as a gaming platform.

[Enoch]

That said, Activision wants a "plug and play" PC alternative which would be the ideal - take the frustration of having to fiddle with your PC to get it to work, make games so you don't have to upgrade your PC every 6 months to play them and I think the PC will become viable again as a gaming platform.

Yeah, they essentially want people to plug their TV into their laptop's 'video out' port, pick up a wireless gamepad controller, and then use their laptop just like a games console. (Without the license fees for Sony/MS, and with the games coming from publisher downloads to capture the gameshop markup and kill the current secondary market for console games.)

 

Sadly, if this come true, it probably means that the games will end up even more 'console-ized' than before. They'll be native to PCs so there won't even be a 'porting' process wherein the game is made desktop-monitor and mouse-and-keyboard friendly.