OnLive: Is it the future of gaming.

[averyblund]

theprof00 said:

averyblund said:

theprof00 said:

averyblund said:

Squilliam said:

 

Btw 70-100ms of latency is extra 2-3 frames of delay between controler input and the games response displayed on screen.

70-100ms on top of the existing lag is unacceptable for many genres. Obviously FPS would be impacted significantly.

Just so everyone knows, the blink of an eye takes 3-400ms

If it takes you almost a half a second to blink your eyes there is a serious problem.

It's not half a second, and that is the average blink, look it up. 333ms is a third of a second. 333 is much closer to 400 than 400 is to 500.

 

Believe it or not, 300 to 400ms is pretty much the speed everyone has agreed on.

Easy way to prove it: A 99MPH fastball goes from pitcher to plate in 395ms. Try blinking right as the pitch is delivered and see if you can still see the ball when your eye opens. If you can, judge the distance it was from the plate. Every foot is one 60th faster. So if you see the ball about 5 feet from the plate, you're 1/12th faster than 395ms, or 350ms.

I said almost a half second- 400ms certainly qualifies as such I think gamers focused would take no more than 200ms.

Your whole argument is flawed too based on the fact that people blink only a few times a minute. OnLive is hardly able to set their buffer based on our blinking pattern. Any lag is bad lag, we can't control our eyes, but we can control out gaming appliance.  So adding a blink to gameplay could make a big difference.