Cloud gaming - the end of the desktop performance pc cpu market?

[kelco]

So after seeing Carmack's keynote at quakecon, and acknowledging that cloud computing is capable of streaming games realtime, will that kill off the performance computing parts market and just leave xeon and opterons in the future?

 

[SPBHM]

onlive in trouble tells the opposite, I think there is still a long way go for cloud gaming to become really relevant.

 

[Yuriman]

I'm skeptical. There have been a number of companies that have claimed this and tried to make cloud gaming work over the past decade, and they have all failed.

With ISPs starting to put bandwidth caps it seems even less likely to me.

 

[kelco]

I'm skeptical as well. But it will eventually become a reality. I just wonder since we've seen drm in the form of an always on connection already, that developers kind of want to head in this direction. But are they trying to kill the very market that spawned them by doing so?

 

[tweakboy]

Nah I dont think 3 million or 10 million PC users of BF2 and MW3 online multiplayer.

that will never die........ the mouse and keyboard combo for FPS .... Nothing beats PC, and uncle Billys bangin OS.

 

[kelco]

Nah I dont think 3 million or 10 million PC users of BF2 and MW3 online multiplayer.

that will never die........ the mouse and keyboard combo for FPS .... Nothing beats PC, and uncle Billys bangin OS.

I thought the same of dedicated servers. Dang I gave myself a sad. I has a sad now.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I don't care how smart Carmack is when it comes to understanding the core aspects of game development, he hasn't produced a good game in years.

 

[KingFatty]

One big problem is being able to meet peak demand when things are very popular (release of brand new game, Christmas time, etc.), without running out of money for leasing all that hardware.

I think that's part of what destroyed Onlive - they couldn't afford to pay for all the servers. But they would need all those servers to meet times of high activity, and then at other times that hardware just sat around idling while costing a lot of money.

 

[frozentundra123456]

One big problem is being able to meet peak demand when things are very popular (release of brand new game, Christmas time, etc.), without running out of money for leasing all that hardware.

I think that's part of what destroyed Onlive - they couldn't afford to pay for all the servers. But they would need all those servers to meet times of high activity, and then at other times that hardware just sat around idling while costing a lot of money.

Could happen in the distant future. The problem is servers as you mentioned but also that enough people have to have a very fast internet connection, and whether bandwidth caps become the norm. But as one who started with dial up internet, I would not rule out anything.

And honestly, if the quality is good enough, I would have no problem running triple A games on modest hardware.

 

[kelco]

I don't care how smart Carmack is when it comes to understanding the core aspects of game development, he hasn't produced a good game in years.

He's not a producer dude.

 

[Ferzerp]

He's not a producer dude.

The guy meant it in the generic sense.

As in, he has not generated a good game in years.

Would you then say "He's not a generator, dude."?

 

[kelco]

The guy meant it in the generic sense.

As in, he has not generated a good game in years.

Would you then say "He's not a generator, dude."?

I thouroughly enjoyed Rage. The textures/animations are better than borderlands 2, and the vehicles drive better than borderlands 2.

 

[fixbsod]

qft --

you tell me which has longer latency --

pushing a button on a local system and having the computer there determine the button pushed and how to update as appropriate

OR

pushing a button on a local system which then has to be transmitted over the internet to a server to then decode the update and then also send the update which has to be received and then updated

so until the latency of the 2nd option starts to seriously close the gap, fuggetaboudit!

onlive in trouble tells the opposite, I think there is still a long way go for cloud gaming to become really relevant.

 

[kelco]

qft --

you tell me which has longer latency --

pushing a button on a local system and having the computer there determine the button pushed and how to update as appropriate

OR

pushing a button on a local system which then has to be transmitted over the internet to a server to then decode the update and then also send the update which has to be received and then updated

so until the latency of the 2nd option starts to seriously close the gap, fuggetaboudit!

Aren't MMO's doing that in PVP already? The game won't even recognize your movements until the server recognizes that you did indeed press W.

 

[Roland00Address]

One big problem is being able to meet peak demand when things are very popular (release of brand new game, Christmas time, etc.), without running out of money for leasing all that hardware.

I think that's part of what destroyed Onlive - they couldn't afford to pay for all the servers. But they would need all those servers to meet times of high activity, and then at other times that hardware just sat around idling while costing a lot of money.

So in sum you need someone with big pockets (I am thinking amazon), who offers a server service anyway and when they are not doing peak demand they use those cpu/gpu servers for other types of calculations.

 

[imagoon]

Aren't MMO's doing that in PVP already? The game won't even recognize your movements until the server recognizes that you did indeed press W.

Depends on the game but many now trust the client "to an extent" and use check points to verify the sanity of the client every few seconds. Basically on the client screen if you run for 10 seconds at "100% speed" and both sides agree on what 100% speed is, if the server sees that the client is saying your tune actually moved 250%, the server will go "um no, go back to {cords}" and you get rubberbanding as your tune pops back to that place.

Battle is always [err well in the mainstream MMOs] sent to the server and the server responds back with hits etc.

The Onlive thing would add to this since there would be User <-intertubz->Onlive<->More Intertubz<->game server. So now you hitting the W key has an additional say 50ms of lag before the client even sees the "W" and then still has to deal with the client to server communications latency. With an MMO this would likely be pretty painful...

 

[MisterMac]

Aren't MMO's doing that in PVP already? The game won't even recognize your movements until the server recognizes that you did indeed press W.

Most MMO\Client-server architecture game relies on back-acceptance and correction.

So no.

Sure if the server discovers your faking packets sending un possible locations and actions, it will correct - but the action is fairly live.


There's a MASSIVE difference from client\game optimization specificly done to benefit a C\S eco-system latency wise - than from a generic platform required to take input over potentially very long distances.


Kind of like trying to compare XBOX\PS3 gpu with desktop gpu.
One is a generic multipurpose processor build in many difference forms and shapes under certain base spefications - the other is clearcut identicly designed processor created only to work optimally with precise set of hardware.

 

[kelco]

Most MMO\Client-server architecture game relies on back-acceptance and correction.

So no.

Sure if the server discovers your faking packets sending un possible locations and actions, it will correct - but the action is fairly live.


There's a MASSIVE difference from client\game optimization specificly done to benefit a C\S eco-system latency wise - than from a generic platform required to take input over potentially very long distances.


Kind of like trying to compare XBOX\PS3 gpu with desktop gpu.
One is a generic multipurpose processor build in many difference forms and shapes under certain base spefications - the other is clearcut identicly designed processor created only to work optimally with precise set of hardware.

True, but I guess it depends on how the c/s implements its system. I'm sure its extremely complicated, and as just an enthusiast thinking about the future, I won't begin to try to imagine what kind of virtualization methods would be used on their end, what kind of compression for transmission, and what kind of networking requirements to make the whole thing seemless. Seems impossible, but people are saying its here. Who am I to argue lol. I would think some sort of computations are obviously still done on the client, just no rendering or what-have you.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Cloud gaming was tried before, epic fail. And it will fail again and again.

Just google it, AMD tried before too for example.

 

[kelco]

Cloud gaming was tried before, epic fail. And it will fail again and again.

Just google it, AMD tried before too for example.

Is it failing because it never worked or for other reasons?

 

[Puppies04]

The day I trust my ISP and a third party both being avaliable while simultaneously being unable to play anything as soon as I travel anywhere without an active internet conection is the same day I quit playing pc games.

crappy irrelevant idea dreamt up by douchebags looking for new ways to extort a monthly fee out of you.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Is it failing because it never worked or for other reasons?

Because the entire concept is flawed. Its a wishdream(for control) that cant be realized.

 

[IntelEnthusiast]

I am not a fan of cloud gaming. Look at what has happened with Diablo III. Is a company out there that has more experience then Blizzard on rolling out patches and keeping the customer connected to their game environment? But no they have dropped the ball so many times and still there is hacks other things that must be dealt with before any type of cloud gaming can become real.

 

[pelov]

Is it failing because it never worked or for other reasons?

There's some serious hurdles for cloud-based gaming, or any serious form of cloud-based computing. Currently, cloud-based computing is successful insofar that it stops at video and data storage. Past that point it all breaks down for several reasons:

The current trend for ISPs and telcos is limiting bandwidth and placing caps. With so many devices floating around, they're getting hammered pretty hard during peak hours. In order for cloud-based gaming to be even considered an alternative, you'd need a very fast, consistent internet connection with unlimited caps. We're nowhere near that.

The telecommunications industry as a whole is a mess. Towers are rare, fiber is rare, particularly in densely populated areas, cable suffers from serious slowdowns, and that's just off the top of my head.

In an alternate universe, cloud gaming could be great. In that same alternate universe I'm dating Scarlett Johansson.

 

[blastingcap]

Latency.