Lafiel said:
TimCliveroller said:
Lafiel said:
TimCliveroller said:
I tell you this: If Gaikai and Onlive is/was/is possible, why ... |
The difference is, that Gaikai/Onlive processes everything inside the render farm and sends a video stream to the user, the users device sends back the control inputs.
The system used here is supposed to handle individual tasks in a game, like lighting or physics, while the rest is handled by the machine at home. Synching up these tasks with what is processed at home sounds quite hard, as in a 30fps game the frame has to be ready after 33.3ms and in a 60fps game after 16.6ms, as many users are on an internet connection that fluctuates between 20-100ms.
|
Suppose one is acceptable from a latency point of view (as certain individuals insinuate). It is quite resonable to belive that a system that is not super bandwidth-hugry (and not extremely latency-bound) would work. If those streaming services work (and from my personal experience - they work acceptably) why wouldn't a "service" (that should in theory be less demanding) work? By the way... multiplayer gaming and latency...
|
The Onlive system is very obviously more robust. Video streaming (it's not much different) is something that has been done for decades and if there are connection difficulties (lags/packet drops/what have you) the user might experience input lag or the video stream might have artifacts etc, but the processing is totally uneffected by any of that.
The system MS proposes on the other hands might lead to serious bugging/crashing, if tasks arrive late or get lost/corrupted and the programm can't handle it.
|
That is a problem for them to solve, and there will be limitations (obviously); but putting everything into perspective - the infrastructure is not (will not be) this huge problem people try to make it seem. Maybe I just have "the best internet" in the world (come to think about it - this is a possibility).
