• Sony prepares for life after game consoles
    60 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Korova;46697667]Streaming is something every gaming company needs to invest in but there will always be a demand for physical hardware. Even with Nvidia's grid technology, I want my 970 GTXs in SLI[/QUOTE] Meanwhile people like me with a shitty nVidia 210 would like video game streaming if there isn't much lag, it's in 1080p and the graphics settings can be set to max. Either way, still could be better than my 210.
I won't switch to streaming until they can do lossless 1080p 60FPS with sub 16ms latency from keyboard to monitor. [sp]NEVER[/sp]
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;46703596]Updating a PC isn't mandatory for online functionality.[/QUOTE] Updating a modern AAA PC game often is
I'll never switch to game streaming. It's impossible to get rid of the latency issues. Sure you can reduce them, but having a machine in your house will always be superior to streaming. Is there even that much of a demand for game streaming? The PS4 is an immensely successful machine in terms of sales already, it's already sold almost 15 million units, people don't seem to mind having a box under their TV.
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;46697925]I don't think consoles will die out. Too much of a cash cow.[/QUOTE] you see how cable tv and cable boxes are sorta dying out now that you can get your tv shows directly from internet based services? I feel like it's possible, after maybe 15 years or when latency is not a common issue , something similar can happen; where we'll start seeing a shift towards game streaming, pushed by publishers wanting more profit, and consoles eventually being replaced by internet services for playing games. I don't think hardware based gaming will ever die out though, and may go on in the form of PC gaming
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;46701713]There was a service back in the late 90s in some hotel chains where you could stream Megadrive, NES, SNES, Saturn, PS1 and N64 games to your hotel room for an hourly fee and it worked pretty well. I traveled a lot back then so I got to play the crap out of that service and I never had any problems with lag or picture quality. I guess my only complaint was the controller was inadequate for playing such a wide variety of games. It worked alright on everything except the N64 which was the odd man out with the Z trigger.[/QUOTE] Based on my understanding of how those services worked, the actual system was on-site in the hotel. There was very little input lag because you were more or less watching the system over a standard analog channel. UUnfortunately, the current issue isn't so much local streaming, it's doing it over a standard network stream hundreds of miles away on a remote machine.
I will never support streaming, owning the physical software on my device is fundamentally better than some drm-locked down and in-accessible service you have to pay for like on live.
glad that they are looking ahead so many companies killed themselves by clinging to the old instead of embracing the new (LOOKING AT YOU KODAK)
[QUOTE]I have an idea for a PlayStation streaming device! I call it: the PlayStation Portable, abbreviated as the PSP. It can even hook up to your TV so you can play games on the big screen.[/QUOTE] That was so stupid, even a horse wouldn't laugh at you.
[QUOTE=Demache;46704703] UUnfortunately, the current issue isn't so much local streaming, it's doing it over a standard network stream hundreds of miles away on a remote machine.[/QUOTE] The end goal for streaming would be to have edge locations as close to clients as possible, with cloud compute becoming a thing; and companies like CTL looking to get into the ring, it might become a very viable route.
[QUOTE=Killergam;46697767]We are already at the stage where you can play playstation\psp games on your phone. Another 5 years and playstation 2\xbox games will be played on your phone and a further 5 years from that, playstation 3/4 games will be able to be played on your phone. Streaming is not the future, your smartphone is![/QUOTE] ps2 games can already be played on a lot of mobile devices xbox though? no. no ones cracked it. no emulators exist. mostly because little to no public documentation exists and no devs came forward. similar for last gen consoles (ps3/360) and iirc the wii only got cracked because of its similarities to the gamecubes architecture. edit: and yes i know there are projects for 360/ps3 emulators but they are both in a state where they run even the most graphically minimal of games at like 5fps
[QUOTE=Dermock;46708620]ps2 games can already be played on a lot of mobile devices xbox though? no. no ones cracked it. no emulators exist. mostly because little to no public documentation exists and no devs came forward. similar for last gen consoles (ps3/360) and iirc the wii only got cracked because of its similarities to the gamecubes architecture. edit: and yes i know there are projects for 360/ps3 emulators but they are both in a state where they run even the most graphically minimal of games at like 5fps[/QUOTE] Its a damn shame too. By all means, we are probably technically capable of running Xbox games. The CPU doesn't necessarily need emulation, and the GPU could be emulated or adapted to more standard calls on modern cards. Hell, for all we know, with proper reverse engineering and understanding, we could simply convert the excecutable to a more Windows friendly format. But the combined lack of interest and documentation really killed all hope in that regard.
[QUOTE=Demache;46708971]Its a damn shame too. By all means, we are probably technically capable of running Xbox games. The CPU doesn't necessarily need emulation, and the GPU could be emulated or adapted to more standard calls on modern cards. Hell, for all we know, with proper reverse engineering and understanding, we could simply convert the excecutable to a more Windows friendly format. But the combined lack of interest and documentation really killed all hope in that regard.[/QUOTE] the fact is that the xbox cant be reverse engineered because there is next to no info on it's really fucky architecture design. if i recall correctly, the furthest anyone has gotten with an xbox emu is running one game and nothing more (halo) and event hen it was extremely crashy/poor performance and the project died when halo1 came to pc. People wanted a xbox emu for halo, but then it came to PC, so then no one cared. Maybe more has come of it, though?
[QUOTE=Dermock;46709352]the fact is that the xbox cant be reverse engineered because there is next to no info on it's really fucky architecture design. if i recall correctly, the furthest anyone has gotten with an xbox emu is running one game and nothing more (halo) and event hen it was extremely crashy/poor performance and the project died when halo1 came to pc. People wanted a xbox emu for halo, but then it came to PC, so then no one cared. Maybe more has come of it, though?[/QUOTE] Hey, i thought we both got banned :D eeeh?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;46697791]Do people honestly like playing games on touchscreens beyond arcade-style puzzle games? I suppose they'd be good for at the very most visual novels, but that's pretty much it, IMO. Maybe gameboy emulators, but I really hate touch screen controls.[/QUOTE] Gamepad peripherals are going to be very important in the scenario they're talking about. I think the point is, as more people have tablets, smartphones, and smart TVs with more and more power, especially since these tablets and smartphones can stream their displays over to TVs, with gamepads as a prominent and universal peripheral, nobody's going to shell out for an expensive games console, since ultimately they wont be adding much to the experience. Streaming, on the other hand, I don't agree with them is going to be a crucial part of gaming in the near future. There just aren't enough people with good enough connections. Maybe streaming between devices is going to be a big thing. I love the idea of having a super powerful desktop in one room, then running a game on that, but streaming it to the TV in the next room and playing on that with a controller.
I find it funny that it's going this way. It was a major achievement when we moved to the PC era away from the "mainframe" style computing, back when everything had a direct uplink to a mainframe where your keyboard and screen (comprising your "dumb" shell machine") would literally be wired into the mainframe two floors below. And now, in 2014, we're slipping back the other way, away from the PC, only this time using the internet to control some remote mainframe.
Considering AT&T refuses to do any kind of upgrading in this area, I'm seriously feeling the effects of everything going digital in the game world still. It takes me days (not hours) to download larger games and most AAA titles. Games like Titanfall are a no-go for me because they are just far too big to even justify buying or downloading it. [I]I am having to base my purchases on how big the game is, not "Will I have fun/enjoy it?", because it really is that bad.[/I] I even have had to stop playing some games I enjoyed because the updates came too frequently and too large to even get a chance to continue playing. Hell, it's a fucking uphill battle just to get the ever-bloating GPU drivers downloaded nowadays. There is no way I could continue gaming if we switched to a streaming game world. (~1.3 Mbit down, ~300 Kbit up, no less than 66ms ping)
[QUOTE=Trumple;46710114]I find it funny that it's going this way. It was a major achievement when we moved to the PC era away from the "mainframe" style computing, back when everything had a direct uplink to a mainframe where your keyboard and screen (comprising your "dumb" shell machine") would literally be wired into the mainframe two floors below. And now, in 2014, we're slipping back the other way, away from the PC, only this time using the internet to control some remote mainframe.[/QUOTE] The only reason mainframe to PC happened was technical. That was the ONLY way to get computer power to individuals on a massive scale, with their own small computer systems. The difference is that now it's becoming technically possible to get everyone access to cloud computing. The infrastructure required for that, fast internet combined with massive online servers, simply did not exist back then. If we extrapolate what we've seen to date, internet connections getting faster and faster, into the future then it's obvious that streaming everything including games is the future. You won't need a console for games in the same way you don't need a cable box for movies and tv. We've gone from modem speed to DSL speed to cable modem speed to fiber optic speeds. It's only going to get faster.
If we were able to use our ps4s as steam boxes ;)))))))))))
the only thing that limits me from creating a gaming smallbox rig and attaching some usb wireless controls of any console for the patented offline buddy couchgaming experience is the exclusiveness of certain titles
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;46704101]I'll never switch to game streaming. It's impossible to get rid of the latency issues. Sure you can reduce them, but having a machine in your house will always be superior to streaming. Is there even that much of a demand for game streaming? The PS4 is an immensely successful machine in terms of sales already, it's already sold almost 15 million units, people don't seem to mind having a box under their TV.[/QUOTE] There isn't now. But you can bet there will be when when your TV comes with it built in at no extra charge, and you can just use your $200 PC to do the same as well. Imagine being someone who is mildly into games, not on a casual level but also not on an enthusiast level. Pay $460 for a box and one game (total cost to play one game: $460). Or just turn on your streaming service and pay $15/mo (or whatever) to play hundreds of games, including the game you wanted to play. Assuming the tech gets to the point where this is feasible (and it already is super close depending on where you live, you can rent games via streaming right now on the PS store), you can bet your ass the mass appeal of consoles stop being a thing and the only ones forking over money for a local game experiences are going to be enthusiasts on PC. You say its impossible, but its really not. The technology is already 90% there, and if you have a decent interenet connection it actually works really well. In 10 years time, I have no doubt in my mind that it will be possible to get it to work 1:1 to how it works just playing locally. And because a $400 console isn't having to do the rendering, you could theoretically have 1080p 60FPS max settings on every game easy (or whatever the standards are in the future). Gigabit internet already makes this pretty much possible right now, and thats with the current standards of this technology.
[QUOTE=Demache;46708971]Its a damn shame too. By all means, we are probably technically capable of running Xbox games. The CPU doesn't necessarily need emulation, and the GPU could be emulated or adapted to more standard calls on modern cards. Hell, for all we know, with proper reverse engineering and understanding, we could simply convert the excecutable to a more Windows friendly format. But the combined lack of interest and documentation really killed all hope in that regard.[/QUOTE] [url]http://ngemu.com/threads/why-is-xbox-emulation-premature.132032/[/url] You should read its pretty interesting. Emulating a x86 processor especially an Intel one isn't easy due to no documentation.
[QUOTE=KorJax;46711404]There isn't now. But you can bet there will be when when your TV comes with it built in at no extra charge, and you can just use your $200 PC to do the same as well. Imagine being someone who is mildly into games, not on a casual level but also not on an enthusiast level. Pay $460 for a box and one game (total cost to play one game: $460). Or just turn on your streaming service and pay $15/mo (or whatever) to play hundreds of games, including the game you wanted to play. Assuming the tech gets to the point where this is feasible (and it already is super close depending on where you live, you can rent games via streaming right now on the PS store), you can bet your ass the mass appeal of consoles stop being a thing and the only ones forking over money for a local game experiences are going to be enthusiasts on PC. You say its impossible, but its really not. The technology is already 90% there, and if you have a decent interenet connection it actually works really well. In 10 years time, I have no doubt in my mind that it will be possible to get it to work 1:1 to how it works just playing locally. And because a $400 console isn't having to do the rendering, you could theoretically have 1080p 60FPS max settings on every game easy (or whatever the standards are in the future). Gigabit internet already makes this pretty much possible right now, and thats with the current standards of this technology.[/QUOTE] I said it's impossible to get rid of latency issues. There are people tearing their hair out trying to reduce the latency of the process happening in your graphics card and the image being displayed on screen, and that's many times smaller than the latency you have to deal with on an internet connection. It is physically impossible for an internet connection to not have some latency, and a such a local system will always be superior. Even if you got your connection speed up to the speed of light -- with no slow down from routers, switches, and servers -- the speed of light is not instant. There will always be a delay and for people like me that will always be unacceptable. I'm sure there will be an audience for game streaming, but having a physical box will always reign supreme for one reason. You can't be denied access to your games because the companies servers are down when you have a physical machine.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;46712349]I said it's impossible to get rid of latency issues. There are people tearing their hair out trying to reduce the latency of the process happening in your graphics card and the image being displayed on screen, and that's many times smaller than the latency you have to deal with on an internet connection. It is physically impossible for an internet connection to not have some latency, and a such a local system will always be superior. Even if you got your connection speed up to the speed of light -- with no slow down from routers, switches, and servers -- the speed of light is not instant. There will always be a delay and for people like me that will always be unacceptable. I'm sure there will be an audience for game streaming, but having a physical box will always reign supreme for one reason. You can't be denied access to your games because the companies servers are down when you have a physical machine.[/QUOTE] You do realize that there is already a delay between your GPU, CPU, Input, and Monitor right? Your absolute minimum combined delay on a high end PC is no less than 3-5 ms. If you factor in a popular TV brand, their signal processing adds 5-10ms on top of that.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;46712349]I'm sure there will be an audience for game streaming, but having a physical box will always reign supreme for one reason. You can't be denied access to your games because the companies servers are down when you have a physical machine.[/QUOTE] People watch tv and movies even though most people don't own those tv shows or movies in physical form. Why? Because that stuff is ALWAYS on. You can always fire up your tv or other device, log into Netflix or even just your cable provider or broadcast tv channel, and watch something. Someday soon games will be the same way. You'll be able to log in from any of your devices and just start playing, because all the games will always be there. There are ways around latency. For one, you might be able to download a batch of data to your device which represents the area of the game you are in, thereby simulating a local installation of the game. All it takes is bandwidth and storage space, both of those things are increasing every year and always have been increasing. People in the future will look back at today's fastest wireless speeds and laugh at how primitive it must have been.
[QUOTE=nagachief;46713808]You do realize that there is already a delay between your GPU, CPU, Input, and Monitor right? Your absolute minimum combined delay on a high end PC is no less than 3-5 ms. If you factor in a popular TV brand, their signal processing adds 5-10ms on top of that.[/QUOTE] That's what I'm saying. The latency of an internet connection will [i]always[/i] make it an inferior way to play games. Most people play online games (where your inputs are near instant) at around 80-100ms of latency, with game streaming that means your actions happen 80ms after you input the command, and you see it another 80ms later. That is unacceptable. Now if we take perfect modern conditions we can have latency as low as 10-20ms, but that still means the time between input and action for the user is 20-40ms. That is far worse that the 5-10ms latency of a physical machine, which only has to send the information one way.
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;46703596]Updating a PC isn't mandatory for online functionality.[/QUOTE] yeah but you'd have to be a complete fucking idiot to consistently run a fresh install of an OS with zero updates and go online all the time. there is a reason for updates and it is a very good one
[QUOTE=Wootman;46711880][url]http://ngemu.com/threads/why-is-xbox-emulation-premature.132032/[/url] You should read its pretty interesting. Emulating a x86 processor especially an Intel one isn't easy due to no documentation.[/QUOTE] There is an Xbox 360 emulator on the way.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.