[Mar 27, 2009, 12:02 am ET] - Share - Viewing Comments
Eurogamer - Why OnLive Can't Possibly Work.
"So, let's say that Grand Theft Auto V is released via OnLive, and
(conservatively) one million people want to play it at the same time. We can
talk about Tesla GPUs, server clusters, the whole nine yards, but the bottom
line is that the computing and rendering power we're talking about is
mammoth to a degree never seen before in the games business, perhaps
anywhere. There may be a way how this can be handled (more on that later),
but even having capacity for 'just' 5,000 clients running at the same time
is a monumental effort and expense. It would be the equivalent of us running
a single Eurogamer server for every reader who connects to the site at the
same time. The expense involved is staggering (not to mention the heat all
this hardware would generate - think of the children!)."
Wired - In Praise of the 3-Hour Game. Thanks Mike Martinez and
"Forty hours might sound like a reasonable amount of play. But the truth is
that very few games offer an experience that truly requires — and rewards —
40 hours of play. After all, one of the chief joys of gameplay (which
nongamers tend to misunderstand) isn't in having mastered it. It's in the
process of mastering it. You start off stumbling around, not really knowing
what your goals are, how your enemies and obstacles behave, or the
complexities of your weapons and abilities."
GameZone - Tough
Cookies: Are video games too easy now?
"From the development side of things, the desire to create a game that can
be easily completed by the player makes a lot of sense. These developers and
publishers are pilling millions of dollars into the creation of these games,
from the production of the story elements and cutscenes, to its continuation
and franchise potential. If you haven’t completed the first game in a
trilogy, are you usually ready to jump into the sequels? After all, if you’d
only made it halfway through Star Wars, would you really give a crap about
The Empire Strikes Back?"
Enter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.
||Re: Op Ed
||Mar 27, 2009, 10:54
|NKD, you do know that ping times are round trip times, right? So 50 ms isn't exactly being generous since that's implying a 100 ms ping time.
I get 18 ms when I ping along the east coast. But then I don't have a crappy cable ISP.
Don't get me wrong, I agree OnLive has formidable challenges with computing power and the underlying economics, but I believe latency is being overblown as a problem by those who don't know much about internet topology.
Though I should say while average latency for customers with non-crappy (read non-cable) ISP's shouldn't be a problem, consistency of service (which Eurogamer points out) can be troublesome.
.. .. ..
Copyright © 1996-2013 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.