Machiavellian said:
Osc89 said:
Machiavellian said:
Isn't it kind of easy to get a record when there is only 2 players in the race. I am not sure if Gaikai beat Onlive since both have their strengths and weakness. Gaikai had better image quality but ran games at 30FPS. Online looks to run all their games at 60FPS but by doing so, the image quality was not as good as Gaikai. It really is up to the gamer which is more important, speed or image quality. Crysis 2 showed how a demanding game can impact controller response and latency in the signal.
One part of the article that I have talked about that will be key to acceptance of Gaikai, especially in the US and maybe even going up against MS is how close the datacenter is to the customer. Here is a blurb from that article that should be very interesting.
"On the other hand, Gaikai's server for supplying the UK is based in London (around 52 miles from where we tested the service) and it appears that the closeness of the server allows for levels of latency on a par, or even better than OnLive, even with the video stream being encoded at half the frame-rate."
I believe location will be the key to how well Gaikai or even MS Rio works and the quality of service both can provide.
|
There were at least 6 cloud gaming companies running at the time of the award, and more have launched since. But I only mentioned it because it was for covering the most countries, it had nothing to do with the quality of the service.
I'm impressed that being 52 miles away has such good latency, as this means that one server location would cover one fifth of England. That assumes that 52 miles is the limit, it could actually be better. Do you know what would still count as "close" to a server?
Given that both MS and Sony are going down this path (and putting a lot of money into it) they both must believe that a good quality service is a reasonable proposition. While I doubt MS is concered whether they will match the technical quality of the service, they will have much more of an issue when it comes to game quantity. Sony has a whole extra generation of games they can put on the service. This, and being a year behind, are bigger problems.
|
We can only assume if MS is a year behind. A lot of their research is done behine close doors. I definitely agree that Sony with their catalog of games from the PS1 to today is a great advantage and this could be something Sony can leverage even if they do not have the most servers within one geographical location.
I did some digging and it appears other companies that are trying to make a profit in this space is having a hard time. One company, Big Fish, closed down because adoption of cloud streaming wasnt working very well. It really is expensive to run such a service because the investment in hardware, datacenters hosting and general maintenance. I am wondering if Sony and MS will charge on top of their network service and additional fee.
|
I'm just going by the leaked document, which showed they were aiming for 2015. The only reason Sony is ahead is because they needed to use the technology to get Remote Play working from launch, so it was higher priority.
I imagine both will charge for a separate subscription. It is looking like both services will go multiplatform anyway, so they can't really tie it to the existing ones.
