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

While video game streaming would be extremely affordable and cost-friendly, in that you don't have to purchase the hardware (e.g. You can play a PS4 game on your iPad with a controller synced) letting everyone and friends play games with each other without having to own the proprietary $400 mammoth, my only concern is how long they will let these servers stay up. There are times where I get an itch to play an old classic and I like the security of having a physical disc. I can play what I want when I want. Even if the game undergoes a recall (e.g. San Andreas) or gets sued into oblivion and forced to shut down, I will still always play the original copy. For physical games, the worst they can do is stop manufacturing that version of the game in the case of the Hot Coffee controversy but no one can force you to return the game to get the "legally-compliant" copy. In the future, they have the full authority to pull the plug entirely.

I hope a world where games are all streamed never comes, because not only it would kill fighting games, it would also disallow modding, which is a bad thing.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50332198]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.[/QUOTE] except it isn't, our digitial Infrastucture isn't getting improved, it's actually failing according to the FCC, and Cable Company and ISP Lobbyists are literaly killing any chances for municipal Broadband that's not Google Fiber, not only that but the FCC has only made requirement's that data caps be gone for one company and that's because of the merger. As people pointed out there would have to be server farms next to each city to minimize latency, and that wouldn't be enough. Plus this would also increase costs to develop games in a world in which Triple A companies already complain the costs are too damn high for to host the fucking servers. You would see the 2015 era of launches tenfold. The subscription model wouldn't be enough for the publisher's to recoup the cost, EA is being too optimistic here. "Netflix for games" would not be practical.

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50332487]except it isn't, our digitial Infrastucture isn't getting improved, it's actually failing according to the FCC, and Cable Company and ISP Lobbyists are literaly killing any chances for municipal Broadband that's not Google Fiber, not only that but the FCC has only made requirement's that data caps be gone for one company and that's because of the merger. As people pointed out there would have to be server farms next to each city to minimize latency, and that wouldn't be enough. Plus this would also increase costs to develop games in a world in which Triple A companies already complain the costs are too damn high for to host the fucking servers. You would see the 2015 era of launches tenfold. The subscription model wouldn't be enough for the publisher's to recoup the cost, EA is being too optimistic here. "Netflix for games" would not be practical.[/QUOTE] You're viewing this through the lens of our current situation, not what could be possible given another ten to twenty years of technological and political advancement.

[QUOTE=eirexe;50332405]I hope a world where games are all streamed never comes, because not only it would kill [B]fighting games[/B], it would also disallow modding, which is a bad thing.[/QUOTE] That is another thing, Console fighting games would die, hell a lot of mutiplayer games would die out (INCLUDING CALL OF DUTY and BATTLEFIELD!)

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50332518]That is another thing, Console fighting games would die, hell a lot of mutiplayer games would die out (INCLUDING CALL OF DUTY and BATTLEFIELD!)[/QUOTE] Why?

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50332527]Why?[/QUOTE] Input delay. Fighting games (and to a lesser extent all games) require precision input. If there's a delay it can absolutely ruin a game. In Street Fighter 4 there are moves you can only pull off in a [i]one frame window[/i], you literally have 1/60th of a second to pull it off. With the lag created in transmitting data across a network such moves are literally impossible. The same thing applies to aiming weapons in shooters, controlling cars in racing games, and platforming in platformers. Any delay in control reduces you control. And no, there will be no technological solution to input delay in the future. Not unless we manage to surpass the speed of light. Technology isn't magic, you can't just say "well in 15 years it'll probably be solved". It won't, the laws of physics prevent it.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50332527]Why?[/QUOTE] You really think the American ISP situation is going to solve itself?

BDA had assumed they would be prohibited online due to content and level of violence— not due to any speculated input-delay.

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50332624]You really think the American ISP situation is going to solve itself?[/QUOTE] Well, yeah. Depending on what kind of timeline we're talking about, at least. I think it is absolutely a given that political atmospheres will change, businesses will rise and fall, and new technologies and innovations will force us into the future whether we want them to or not. [editline]16th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Starpluck;50332627]BDA had assumed they would not be prohibited online due to content and level of violence— not due to any speculated input-delay.[/QUOTE] Input delay isn't something I had seriously considered, but I also don't understand how it could be a significant problem? Games like League of Legends require split-second reflexes, and I've played a number of fighting and shooting games streamed online that do as well. Could you explain how input delay is not a significant problem in these, but would be with other content, especially with the massive potential of things like Google Fiber on the horizon? And, of course, whatever breakthrough eventually follows that. I'm not trying to be snippy, I just legitimately don't understand why input delay is expected to be a significant problem when we already have near-instantaneous communication of this stuff on already obsolete network infrastructure? Please break this down for me in simple terms.

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;50332562]And no, there will be no technological solution to input delay in the future. Not unless we manage to surpass the speed of light. Technology isn't magic, you can't just say "well in 15 years it'll probably be solved". It won't, the laws of physics prevent it.[/QUOTE] But it will. Obama has already spearheaded countless pro-internet accessibility initiatives and the Google Fiber machine keeps on growing. My ISP increased my speed by 6x without an increase in price just out of fear that Fiber might one day operate here. This is the reality of internet today. And 15 years ago our average computer specifications was in an entirely different landscape. Who's to say we wont have an innovation in the next 15 years from now? If you compared the differences in hardware 15 years ago today, the person back then would think you're an idiot to even suggest we'd get to this level. Just as other people are being called right idiots now for even suggesting playable online streams.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50332627]BDA had assumed they would not be prohibited online due to content and level of violence— not due to any speculated input-delay.[/QUOTE] It's not speculated input delay, it's actually a real problem. Right now monitor manufacturers are trying to find ways of reducing input delay between the graphics card and the monitor. A network connection adds a huge input delay, which people experienced when they tried Onlive* and the Playstation streaming thing. *Speaking of Onlive, input delay is 100% what killed that service. The lack of games and the pricing model didnt help, but having a service which provides an objectively worse experience is not something people are willing to pay for. Which is why I find all claims that game streaming will somehow be a big thing in the future to be ridiculous. You're asking for 1080p 60fps video streaming, with no delay or buffering, and for the delay between input and action to be unnoticeable. That is actually impossible. As for content, I don't see why violence or sex would be an issue. The same companies making the games and the consoles would be providing the streaming service, and they're happy to sell all games on their existing services.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50332688]But it will. Obama has already spearheaded countless initiatives and the Google Fiber machine keeps on growing, my ISP increased my speed by 6x without an increase in price just out of fear that Fiber might one day operate here. And 15 years ago our average computer specifications was in an entirely different landscape. Who's to say we wont have an innovation in the next 15 years from now?[/QUOTE] You're not getting it. It's not about how far technology progresses. No matter how fancy your computers get, you cannot surpass the speed of light when transmitting information. The only way to reduce input lag to a minimum is to have a network of servers that is sufficiently dense that no client is ever further than a set distance from one server. That in itself is extremely expensive to maintain and I really don't see the benefits of this over the current system.

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;50332699]*Speaking of Onlive, input delay is 100% what killed that service. The lack of games and the pricing model didnt help, but having a service which provides an objectively worse experience is not something people are willing to pay for. Which is why I find all claims that game streaming will somehow be a big thing in the future to be ridiculous. You're asking for 1080p 60fps video streaming, with no delay or buffering, and for the delay between input and action to be unnoticeable. That is actually impossible.[/QUOTE] Why, though? Like, I have no doubt that Onlive died as a result of this, but our network infrastructure is already outdated. With Google fiber on the horizon, is this not going to be a similar leap in capability as dial-up to broadband was? And what of whatever breakthrough eventually follows that? And that? Why is it so impossible to imagine networks capable of streaming high quality video with no buffering, and transmitting input from controllers, mice, and keyboards with imperceptible delays?

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50332715]You're not getting it. It's not about how far technology progresses. No matter how fancy your computers get, you cannot surpass the speed of light when transmitting information. The only way to reduce input lag to a minimum is to have a network of servers that is sufficiently dense that no client is ever further than a set distance from one server. That in itself is extremely expensive to maintain and I really don't see the benefits of this over the current system.[/QUOTE] BDA, those Obama Initiatives, "Somehow" didn't go where they were supposed to go. (Money to expand infrastructure went into the Pockets of the Big ISPs) If there was the most visible corruption in the USA, I'd point to the ISP's

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50332757]BDA, those Obama Initiatives, "Somehow" didn't go where they were supposed to go. (Money to expand infrastructure went into the Pockets of the Big ISPs)[/QUOTE] You're referring to the $200 billion broadband scandal from the 1990s in which the government paid ISPs to run a fiber-optic line across the entire United States, and ran with it. This was a decade before Obama became president. The Obama initiative is something else that seeks to make internet faster and accessible by looking towards our allies in Europe in how they get such high-speed internet.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50332688]But it will. Obama has already spearheaded countless pro-internet accessibility initiatives and the Google Fiber machine keeps on growing. My ISP increased my speed by 6x without an increase in price just out of fear that Fiber might one day operate here. This is the reality of internet today. And 15 years ago our average computer specifications was in an entirely different landscape. Who's to say we wont have an innovation in the next 15 years from now? If you compared the differences in hardware 15 years ago today, the person back then would think you're an idiot to even suggest we'd get to this level. [B]Just as other people are being called right idiots now for even suggesting playable online streams.[/B][/QUOTE] No, people are being told the reality that online streaming will never be fast enough to play comfortably. It is a physical impossibility. Every millisecond of input delay is an objective reduction in product quality. Most players won't be able to articulate why, but they'll be able to know that it feels bad to play. That is due to unavoidable input lag, due to the hard cap of the speed of light. Even then achieving the speed of light is practically impossible as your connection has to go through switches and routers which slow that connection down a tiny bit. Like I said before, technology isn't magic, the limitations are well known and they can not be overcome. Connection speeds will certainly improve with time, but those speeds will never be good enough to make game streaming a viable option. Good enough that you can download a 40GB game in an hour, sure, But not game streaming.

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50332757]BDA, those Obama Initiatives, "Somehow" didn't go where they were supposed to go. (Money to expand infrastructure went into the Pockets of the Big ISPs)[/QUOTE] I'm no more a fan of the ISPs than you are, dude. I'm aware of their fuckery and just as outraged by it as anyone. I'm just confused about why you think they'll always and forever for the whole of time maintain that power, especially with the behemoth that is Google challenging them [I]right now?[/I]

Also OnLive is not a reliable indicator. The company was founded in 2003. They ended up launching their services 6 years ago, long before the concept of a 'Google Fiber' network would no longer be considered as a form of "internet-blasphemy." They launched way to soon and at a time when ISPs were not even considered "public utilities" yet. OnLive was ahead of it's time and tried to capitalize on what will be considered a successful business model far into the future.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50332789]I'm no more a fan of the ISPs than you are, dude. I'm aware of their fuckery and just as outraged by it as anyone. I'm just confused about why you think they'll always and forever for the whole of time maintain that power?[/QUOTE] Because Net Neutrailty is still fucking Fragile, in fact I don't see it not in trouble until a two more presidential terms.

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50332811]Because Net Neutrailty is still fucking Fragile, in fact I don't see it not in trouble until a two more presidential terms.[/QUOTE] That's kind of what I'm talking about though, dude. We're not speaking right now in terms of weeks or months, but in years and decades. What makes you think that, twenty years from now, nothing will have changed?

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50332823]That's kind of what I'm talking about though, dude. We're not speaking right now in terms of weeks or months, but in years and decades. What makes you think that, twenty years from now, nothing will have changed?[/QUOTE] If there is one legal "Crack" in net neutrality, the whole thing falls apart, we actually lose momentum in the ISP's battle in the Internet.

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50332840]If there is one legal "Crack" in net neutrality, the whole thing falls apart, we actually lose momentum in the ISP's battle in the Internet.[/QUOTE] Forever? Like, welcome to the Eternal Universal Empire Of Comcast?

snip

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50332735]Why, though? Like, I have no doubt that Onlive died as a result of this, but our network infrastructure is already outdated. With Google fiber on the horizon, is this not going to be a similar leap in capability as dial-up to broadband was? And what of whatever breakthrough eventually follows that? And that? Why is it so impossible to imagine networks capable of streaming high quality video with no buffering, and transmitting input from controllers, mice, and keyboards with imperceptible delays?[/QUOTE] Alright, let me put it this way: I live in Dublin. Imagining I'm streaming a game from a data server in Manchester (because one being located in Ireland is unlikely) which is 310KM away. My input would travel at 299,792KM/s to the server and back at the same speed. Imagining a situation where there are no switches or routers between me and the server and that the server takes literally no time to calculate my input, it would take 4 milliseconds for my command to register and return to me (i.e. info going both ways). That is 4 milliseconds that physically can not be reduced. That doesn't sound like a lot, but then you have to consider real world conditions. The time it takes the server to calculate will increase that by maybe another millisecond (so +1). The monitor I am using will have a delay of 5-10 milliseconds (5 if it's a good one 10 if it's a bad one, or somewhere in between). The switches and routers between me and the server will add a couple of milliseconds* so we'll add another 4 so as not to be too high or too low. And finally we have the actual connection between the device we're using to stream the game and the controller, being a couple of milliseconds I'll say 1 to low ball it. So all together we have 15-20ms delay, and this is imagining a fucking fantastic connection BTW. The speed of light is literally adding up to 50% extra delay, being that the less the delay is the more the speed of light accounts for it. To put that into perspective, the input delay of a home console would only include the processing, controller, and monitor delays, so about 7-13ms. And people consider that to be much too big of a delay. *The switches and routers also becomes a large problem, as the people supplying the streaming service have very little control over how the connection reaches you. Depending on your connection it'll prioritise either the fastest connection speeds or the shortest hops. Meaning the connection decides whether to choose the roads with higher speed limits regardless of how many toll booths there are, or the road with fewer toll booths but stricter speed limits. This is very difficult to account for as what your connection chooses will depend on network traffic at the time, so input delay could be severely affected under certain conditions.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50332896]Forever? Like, welcome to the Eternal Universal Empire Of Comcast?[/QUOTE] You know, I don't really know what alternatives there are. Google fiber is just a myth to most people, while Comcast is the only option to roughly the same number of people. I'd love for Comcast to foad but I don't realistically see it happening without a drastic change (which their lawyers will have an unlimited budget to resist with)

Also, I don't mean to be inflammatory or anything. I just want to make sure you know that the speed of light is actually a real barrier we're running into and no level of technological advancement will change that. We have already reached a point which would have seemed impossible in the early days of networking. The speed of light is too slow.

[QUOTE=Anti Christ;50332977]You know, I don't really know what alternatives there are. Google fiber is just a myth to most people, while Comcast is the only option to roughly the same number of people. I'd love for Comcast to foad but I don't realistically see it happening without a drastic change (which their lawyers will have an unlimited budget to resist with)[/QUOTE] Both you and BDA are right. Comcast will not be forever, but Google Fiber has to pick up the pace fast.

Alright put it this way, if I press a button on my computer, it takes a certain amount of time (somewhere around 50ms) for the computer to register that input and change the display. Putting network cards, switches, cabling, and servers between that button and my display is going to increase that delay significantly that I will notice, especially in first-person shooters or fighting games. Cabling is the one factor that puts a hard limit on the minimum amount of delay: if I lived in Rio de Janeiro and the nearest server was in San Francisco, and there was a fibre optic line connecting my computer directly to that server, that's a 20,000 km round trip that adds 100ms of delay to my input (speed of light in optical fibre is 2/3 c). Even if the trip was from St. Louis to San Francisco (round trip of 5,600 km), that will still add about 20 ms, which is a good chunk of the delay that already exists. It's just not feasible unless you live in a major city that has servers nearby, or if there are servers all over the country.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50333026]Alright put it this way, if I press a button on my computer, it takes a certain amount of time (somewhere around 50ms) for the computer to register that input and change the display. Putting network cards, switches, cabling, and servers between that button and my display is going to increase that delay significantly that I will notice, especially in first-person shooters or fighting games. Cabling is the one factor that puts a hard limit on the minimum amount of delay: if I lived in Rio de Janeiro and the nearest server was in San Francisco, and there was a fibre optic line connecting my computer directly to that server, that's a 20,000 km round trip that adds 100ms of delay to my input (speed of light in optical fibre is 2/3 c). Even if the trip was from St. Louis to San Francisco (round trip of 5,600 km), that will still add about 20 ms, which is a good chunk of the delay that already exists. It's just not feasible unless you live in a major city that has servers nearby, [B]or if there are servers all over the country[/B].[/QUOTE] Which would fucking skyrocket the cost to maintain.