I see cloud gaming becoming a viable alternative to what we have now, but not replacing it in the near future. If they can pipe all the graphics with low latency then they could charge a monthly access fee for the latest games, but hardware is progressing so fast that they would have to build a game several generations beyond what we have now to entice people, otherwise the would probably prefer to own it and play it at home.
I really don't see cloud computing going anywhere anytime soon. To many challanges as xbeater is saying. Personally, I like having the control over my own hardware. Maybe in the VERY long-term outlook, cloud computing could go somewhere. I just don't see how it could anytime soon.
He probably want to tell the PC hardware is better.
Old 5-6 year old console where only Xbox360 and PS3 running in 1080p and have a limited 5 year old video card.
It's a bit soon to call the dead of consoles.
When they'll have a sale drop, they'll just make a new one with better hardware and new support like "cloud-base game" or "on demand game"... whatever is need in the future.
I am glad to see he is looking toward the future, but I am curious how the economic end of things are going to affect cloud gaming. So far what I have seen proposed is that you pay a monthly access fee and then must still buy or rent the games you want to play. This will be great short term since you aren't buying a 300 dollar console, but stop paying and you stop playing. I often buy games to play "later" so I am currently not interested in cloud gaming at all.
Internet connection speeds in this case are irrelevant. It's all about the latency. Gamers consider wireless mice slow. If that's slow, then sending input information across the internet and getting the results/video sent back across the internet to you would have to be considered glacial.
[citation][nom]False_Dmitry_II[/nom]Internet connection speeds in this case are irrelevant. It's all about the latency. [/citation]
Well you need a lot of bandwidth to deliver crystal clear prerendered 60 FPS @ 1080p. Still, latency will be the biggest problem and the reason this kind of service won't take off for at least a decade.
Though I think we are indeed behind where we should be on internet speed and deployment, comparing us to small countries like Romania is laughable. We have how many times the landmass and how many more rural residences?
[citation][nom]simple11[/nom]Maybe when our wired connections are in the 10gb/s ports ha.[/citation]
yeah exactly. I mean we might get 10gb/s in the near future but how about people living in poor countries or the people in villages? You can't forbid them from playing just because they're government can't give fast internet connections. Cloud computing needs time.
[citation][nom]kayvonjoon[/nom]yeah exactly. I mean we might get 10gb/s in the near future but how about people living in poor countries or the people in villages? You can't forbid them from playing just because they're government can't give fast internet connections. Cloud computing needs time.[/citation]
yes you can, just like people who can't afford broadband right now can't play games (can't play on dial-up)
[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]Yeah but what if they offer you say Crysis 4 at 1080p for $5 a month? And you never have to upgrade any hardware, it just works flawlessly? Would the lack of control still bother you?[/citation]
5$ a month + 5$ for five other games you enjoy, 30 right there without the actual subscription fee.
Maybe if you only played one game it would be beneficial, but cloud gaming is going to build on whats in the works now, it won't be worth it for many many people.