superchunk said:
Gunman121 said:
p
1. That's still false. Depite the rapid movement forward, I don't think you understand how much more powerful console /PC chips are. (There's a reason they're huge.) We've seen some impressive feats done on phones, but take note -- Mobile devices do not get the allocated resources that consoles/pc get. Thus they will not be able to compete, because they need to stay at a low power output. People like to make predictions about next gen phones and what they will support, but that's only to drive support. It just simply isn't close enough yet. Definitely not even into 2013, I also doubt 2014. Preidctions estimate power increase between years will continue to gain large numbers. However, mobile processors hold 32 KB l2 cache, and 1 MB l3. Even netbooks have far superior processors to that, and that's the very MINIMUM. Now ... If in a year a smart phone was allocated to be a "gaming device." It's far more feasable as extended resources wouldn't be necessary elsewhere in the machine. Even so, it would still hold a lot of fragmentation into the market -- something that is not good for games. (This is another reason why it won't happen, such an extreme jump would leave everyone from the year prior completely uncapable of running the new applications)
To end: No, it's not happening.
2. Technology improves every day indeed. That doesn't mean, all services improve. I think you underestimate the costs to improve servers / bandwith. OnLive has certainly become large, but what you're suggesting won't happen. It assumes that as soon as technology improves, then providers switch within a decent amount of time period. This is proven false, by looking at American internet providers. For eample, TimeWarner charges people about $50 a month for a 10mbps down/ 1mbs upload -- this has been the same for over 5 years. They've recently come out with a plan for about $99, that triples or quadrouples that. That connection would be necessary to play OnLive currently, with no lag and full 720P(Assuming OnLive's servers could even output that -- which they can't.)
Do you instantly get a new connection when a better service is provided? Have you expierenced the major issues that plague OnLive? Would someone really want to pay a monthly subscription ON TOP of a large internet bill, just to afford to be able to do cloud gaming. (Not to mention on mobile devices, an even larger input delay with devices not having the same internet connection speed as desktops.)
3. I'll agree with all that, except for Gaming.
|
1) We're not just talking about phones/tablets here. I'm talking about set-top boxes that plug-in to the wall. Well, people argued with me that Vita wouldn't be matched/beat (hardware-wise) before the end of 2012 by Android products. Guess we'll see what happens in 2013 with this one. Just look at the MS Surface tablet Pro. It has an i5 processor... in a tablet that is barely bigger than an iPad3. I also think you are over simplifying the difference between high-end phone/tablet hardware and netbooks/laptops.
2) I pay $45/mo for 20Mbps. Last year it was 12Mbps. Additionally, EU and Japan and other nations are faster/better than US at this increase. I get 16Mpbs down and 10Mbps up constantly or better... even over wifi.
3) ok.
|
1. The point still remains valid. Google doesn't want fragmentation anymore. In order for a box to compete with consoles, while running on android -- it would need a signfiicant technology gain on other devices. That doesn't bold well for the android market. By the end of 2012 the Vita still won't be matched either. It needs to be noted that the Vita is underclocked as well. It won't stay as powerful hardware wise in 2013. As in some department it is beat, (Such as memory / Ram.) However, furthermore tablets/phones/boxes still have to deal with fragmentation and other active memory. With those limitations, it won't pass.
I'm not sure why you're bringing up the i5. I certainly hope you're aware that it's not a desktop i5, or even a laptop. It's a significally reduced one. Certainly it does have a lot of power, but the integrated chip is still weak.
Explain to me how I'm oversimplfying it then. Simply put I think you're expecting a jump that won't happen for at least another two years.
2. That's still not enough to play 720P via cloud streaming, and considering the next console jump + subscription fees... You're looking at a hefty price for a "android box"
Quick edit: I do want to make the note, what you're suggesting is certainly possible. Making an Android gaming device, that does have beefy system requirments that can compete with consoles. But as I mentioned previously, google doesn't like that idea because of fragmentation. It also would mean a device that is similarly priced to an actual console, and it would mean you would need dedicated developers to that device.
