such a discussion being "impossible"
just make sure u dont type in any credit card numbers tumbler, i wouldnt trust that company as far as i can throw em.
Because it costs 15 dollars a month, and that's before you get ANYTHING?
Well Vern, it would have looked better for you if you had just admitted that you misunderstood the post you replied to.
Anonymous Rex wrote on Mar 11, 2010, 07:05:You're comparing apples to oranges. Zynga claims to have 60 million active users per day. So, even if it made 80 million last year from microtransactions, that's not much money per user even if that 60 million were the total number of users in the year instead of just on one day. Those Zynga users are not spending $15 per month on games and certainly not spending $15 per month in addition to spending $30 - $60 initially for a game. They are using Zynga because it is free or close to it.
For reference, this is the same world that paid Zynga 80 million bucks last year for virtual items in crappy flash games.
Completely ignores the fact that in your rush to show me what a large and powerful electronic penis you have, you utterly failed to understand a single thing you pretended to read and respond to.
Right. So the solution is to then create a non-platform independent system, so that everyone will STOP playing games on the PC and switch to that platform instead. Do you even listen to yourself when you make these comments?
All those dirt cheap laptops could become gaming platforms
by why would a consumer not try this service...for free..
Getting more people playing games on the PC is what this platform needs.
Verno wrote on Mar 11, 2010, 08:47:Let's assume the tech works.
Completely ignores the reality of the
Completely ignores the reality of the issues related to the service's implementation. Let's assume it doesn't work and here's why:
The only way to have this service make money is overselling capacity. Nothing suffers resource starvation on a machine like games. You are introducing multiple points of failure - localized issues on the server, transmission problems and thats without even getting into the little set top box they send you.
All of which ignores the inherent latency added to the game itself. Input lag in an FPS would be unbearable, something akin to playing Call of Duty with a 300ms ping.
I'm sure this is the gaming industry's wet dream on the road to removing all consumer ownership rights but it's simply not a realistic goal at this time.
InBlack wrote on Mar 11, 2010, 10:22:Verno wrote on Mar 11, 2010, 10:01:
That's an impressive amount of buzzwords.
Sorry for the CAPS/BUZZ words, fucking stress....
space captain wrote on Mar 11, 2010, 00:55:It gives total control over the content since the customer never has it. The publisher can dictate if the game runs, for how long, and what price must be paid to keep it running. And piracy, sharing, and resale are impossible with this service. Finally it could also eliminate the console/format wars since the same game could be streamed to any platform, i.e. develop one game for all targets. That is what makes it a content provider's wet dream.
how does the service aspect make it a wet dream?