There May Be No Consoles In The Future - According to EA - Polidicks

[QUOTE=J!NX;50327008]Streaming will eventually become fast enough that peoples brains won't be able to tell anyways so it won't really matter[/QUOTE] The biggest mistake that tech laymans make that makes engineers cringe is when they think technology's problems can be waved away with "well, but it'll get better". Sure, it'll get better, but I sincerely doubt that anytime within your life you'll see us break the speed of light barrier for internet communications so that we can have reasonable game-streaming over long distances. More likely games would have to be designed around anticipated lag, you would need a relatively close server centre, and overall the experience would be "meh" at best.

[QUOTE=Drury;50326996]Humanity will find a way to grow and harvest consoles for food. They'll finally serve as a proper [B]potato [/B]replacement.[/QUOTE] [IMG]https://facepunch.com/fp/flags/cz.png[/IMG] This was funnier than it should have been. But there'd be a market for more traditional consoles in regions with shittier internet for quite some time I imagine.

[QUOTE=Anti Christ;50327731]What? Battlefield games only come out every few years, at most. If we even see a Battlefield 12, its well over a decade away. What are you even trying to say?[/QUOTE] I was being sarcastic, and it found it just really wierd with a franchise with number 12 in there....it felt....just wierd.

[QUOTE=Source;50328221]I was being sarcastic, and it found it just really wierd with a franchise with number 12 in there....it felt....just wierd.[/QUOTE] I'm p sure he was just making the point that he's discussing long term plans, and chose a large number to make that clear. Battlefield is a well known franchise, so put two and two together, and his statement makes complete sense to me.

To put some numbers on the delay factor, assume we manage to achieve light speed connections with absolutely no delay in network switches, routers, servers etc. To send a signal from San Francisco to New York takes 14ms; that's a 28 ms round trip. Considering the best TVs nowadays have an input lag of less than 10ms, this 28ms round trip is going to be a very significant factor in user experience. EDIT: Even something like LA to SF will take 4ms. I cannot see this being viable unless they manage to set up such a dense network of servers that there is always one <2-3 ms away.

[QUOTE=J!NX;50327547]We went from 64mb of RAM to 16gb+ being the norm, and that is just ram It can and will get faster, out of house maybe not, that we just have to see[/QUOTE] no, it won't. the problem with remote streaming thats being discussed is latency, something which at the very least is capped at around half of today's common point to point latencies due to the speed of light. Even getting there would involve a complete overhaul of our network and even when we do that it still wont be good enough for people who dont live within a tight radius of a streaming server. this matters less for games where quick reactions matter less, like civ, but even for them it makes the game's menus and UI feel unresponsive and crappy. [QUOTE=Riller;50327044]What; really? 'cause the input lag I get from running a wired HDMI from my desktop to my TV is more than enough for me to have to feel it and have to move back to my PC for some of the more finicky stuff in Dark Souls 1.[/QUOTE] most tvs come standard with a solid second of latency unless you mess around with their settings. modern TVs actually add a lot of post processing garbage to things you watch to make them "look better"(rather than how the thing was intended) and this process means a lot of latency, it doesnt matter when watching television but obviously games it becomes obvious in.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;50328878]most tvs come standard with a solid second of latency unless you mess around with their settings. modern TVs actually add a lot of post processing garbage to things you watch to make them "look better"(rather than how the thing was intended) and this process means a lot of latency, it doesnt matter when watching television but obviously games it becomes obvious in.[/QUOTE] Gotta turn turn all that shit off. It normally makes a television signal look crap. I don't really understand why they add them. I've got an older Sony 32" 720p TV and it doesn't have any fancy effects. I actually think it looks better than a lot of newer televisions, except maybe in contrast ratio. Sometimes I go round a mates house and he's got a bigger fancier 1080p TV and he plays it with all the post processing left on and frankly it looks shit. There's major input lag with all turned on, that horrible frame interpolation thing that can make it look smoother but also really weird and it makes the tearing is awful. I'd rather play a game at 25 fps, rather than fake 50+ hz. I don't know how he doesn't notice it. I still think the best TV picture I've ever seen was an HD CRT set playing a proper uncompressed HD signal and it looked incredible, it looked almost 3D it was that impressive. I still miss my ancient Trinitron set, was dark day when that died. I was actually really sceptical about LCD screens for a long time. Especially when most people were going to just be watching SD television broadcasts. I used to sell TVs snd I didn't really like many of them if them at all (I wasn't on commission so I never bothered upselling, because I'm not dishonest). I sort of think 4k is a waste of money at the moment unless you've got a super high end computer than can support it. There's just not enough stuff to watch at that resolution. It's been a while though, so I've no idea where TV/monitor tech is at the moment [editline]16th May 2016[/editline] I'm one of those dicks who goes round your house and messes with your TV picture and sound settings if they don't look or sound right. Apologies for going way off topic

[QUOTE=Anti Christ;50327161]I don't see game streaming happening until internet improves in america. Before that, good luck.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't ever do that; what happens when the servers go down? At least with Steam, you have the files on your computer

[quote]"If you and I want to play Battlefield 12 [/quote] I love how he just straight-up admits they are going to rehash Battlefield at least 12 times

Sounds like the kind of thing that's going to be terrible outside the US because of ~reasons~, e.g. like Netflix selection outside the US and UK.

Not with Comcasts' 300 GB monthly cap.

what about using quantum entanglement for internet when is that possible

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50329745]I love how he just straight-up admits they are going to rehash Battlefield at least 12 times[/QUOTE] by then CoD will have been rehashed way the fuck more, and Assassins creed has already been rehashed waaaaay more already so I mean [editline]16th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Mattk50;50328878]-snip just since, it's long, don't want to page stretch-[/QUOTE] When talking in house streaming, it will get faster in time, I'm not saying its going to literally break the laws of physics , but I'm sure humans can't perceive the speed of light, so it's not like that matters at that distance. it's not going to be instant, just instant enough that we probably won't notice as much as we think out of house streaming will improve, and you'd have to be crazy to think otherwise. How much it'll improve, fuck, who knows, probably not by much, but it'll at least get sort-of-okish, if moderately acceptable. The only thing that'll improve it is by getting better networks though. unless we increase the universal speed of light. Then we'll be OK. [QUOTE=Janus Vesta;50327879] Internet streaming is an impractical and inefficient way to play games and will remain a niche for the foreseeable future.[/QUOTE] tbh the only use internet streaming has, at least for me, is pretty much for RCing a computer. Team viewer already has that down at least. I can't imagine how AWFUL playing a game on that would be but, I'm sure we can play turn based shooters some day :v:

And always online single player is gonna be a huge thing in 10 years time. right.

Not this streaming bullshit again. Especially coming from EA, with their trigger-happy "shut-down-all-the-games" hammer.

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50327597]Also Modding, and datamining will never go away because the PC crowd will always reverse engineer file formats[/QUOTE] I don't really see what's there to datamine if all you receive is a video feed. I really doubt it's a scenario where the server sends the client the stuff it needs to render the current frame, that would have insane bandwidth requirements and kinda defeat the point of minimizing the necessary client-side setup. Like the article mentions, the vision of the future is just having a monitor, input method and internet access.

This would also put a lot of the costs on the developers/publishers side, what you save in not having a game-capable console they have to spend on servers, they would be even more happy about shutting down games. Imagine publishers now having to have server farms the size of Facebook's or Google's to hold the millions of people playing their various games. These servers would be more expensive than regular multiplayer servers since they'd have to render the whole game and stream it instead of just the usual server-side info. One of the problems of OnLive was that eventually it would become more expensive than just buying a computer.

A big problem with consoles now and consoles way back is that the hardware's too similar. Way back you'd be able to get a super multi-functional console (i.e. PS2) for a decent price, and it's capabilities would blow any average PC for the same price out of the way ($300'ish) Seems like now the better price for performance lays in the PC market, especially seeing as the console market is being milked by online taxes etc.

[QUOTE=Downsider;50329921]what about using quantum entanglement for internet when is that possible[/QUOTE] Never, seen as you can't transfer information using quatum entanglement.

[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;50330850]I don't really see what's there to datamine if all you receive is a video feed. I really doubt it's a scenario where the server sends the client the stuff it needs to render the current frame, that would have insane bandwidth requirements and kinda defeat the point of minimizing the necessary client-side setup. Like the article mentions, the vision of the future is just having a monitor, input method and [B]internet access[/B].[/QUOTE] Dead on Arrival. Because Fuck Comcast.

This would be very far in the future. And also redundant. Why stream when we could potentially have enough processing power in our smartphones in the distant feature? It's likely that even if we don't have a traditional console there'll be some in-home device that would stream over wifi, which we're kind of already headed for as a convenience measure. The market will not transition to streaming for a quite a long time less they want to lose out on the massive demographic that doesn't have the internet speeds required. However, in a perfect world where the logistics were not an issue, streaming would certainly win out. The cost per month would most definitely be much cheaper than actually purchasing games if it worked like Netflix and you had access to 1000+ games for ~$15 / month.

I hope in the future consoles become more open, because closed platforms are just anti-consumer, look at iPhones.

Am I living in a seventh world country or something? My max internet speed is 300-400 Kbps. Until Google fiber drops here the best you can get is TWC Business class which is $79.99 a month for only 25mbps. How are we supposed to do game streaming around here? It takes like 2 days for me to get a 35 gig game.

[QUOTE=xbax;50331746]Am I living in a seventh world country or something? My max internet speed is 300-400 Kbps. Until Google fiber drops here the best you can get is TWC Business class which is $79.99 a month for only 25mbps. How are we supposed to do game streaming around here? It takes like 2 days for me to get a 35 gig game.[/QUOTE] We can't, unless the American ISP's do a 180 soon, (Doubt it they are trying to hold on to power and not become "dumb pipes") this isn't practical for the forseeable future.

[QUOTE=xbax;50331746]Am I living in a seventh world country or something? My max internet speed is 300-400 Kbps. Until Google fiber drops here the best you can get is TWC Business class which is $79.99 a month for only 25mbps. How are we supposed to do game streaming around here? It takes like 2 days for me to get a 35 gig game.[/QUOTE] Seems like it. I had 4 Mbps speeds in 2007 and now it is at 30 Mbps for the same price, and I live in a place with less than 200 people. It is mind blowing for me to see so many people complain about Internet speeds in such a rich country. Makes no sense.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50329745]I love how he just straight-up admits they are going to rehash Battlefield at least 12 times[/QUOTE] Nothing wrong with that. Its a very solid game and if they keep it updated over time I am cool with it.

[QUOTE=Cocacoladude;50331848]Nothing wrong with that. Its a very solid game and if they keep it updated over time I am cool with it.[/QUOTE] its not like every battlefield game is the exact same as the one before it either? im not really sure who thinks battlefield is rehashed, when there are other IPs that are waaaay more milked than that

[QUOTE=Cocacoladude;50331848]Nothing wrong with that. Its a very solid game and if they keep it updated over time I am cool with it.[/QUOTE] Also, if people didn't want new Battlefields every once in awhile they wouldn't keep buying 'em, just saying.

[QUOTE=Anti Christ;50331857]its not like every battlefield game is the exact same as the one before it either? im not really sure who thinks battlefield is rehashed, when there are other IPs that are waaaay more milked than that[/QUOTE] Pretty much, new guns, new vehicles, new features. Good stuff.

I have to agree. The future is Netflix for games. It will be a while before our infrastructure and technology has upgraded to that point, but subscription-based game streaming services are basically inevitable imo.