Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Thwt the transistor count in my wireless modem isn't increasing enough?
PlayStation 5 won't be a physical console...
- Thread starter Merlin5
- Start date
Surely doing such a thing would really limit their audience, as only those with a half decent internet connection owuld be able to use it. What about those people that live miles from anywhere or don't have access to a broadband service that gives them a decent download speed or allowance. . . Suicide if you ask me.
Which is why this story is a load of bull ****.
Not only this but also there would be no looking forward to new hardware being released if your current tv, tablet or phone could stream games, I love the excitement of getting a shiny new toy: the whole building up to the release of the ps4 like we have now will be missing, the rumours of specs and release dates, the buzz of unboxing it and that smell when you first switch it on (just me?) will be a thing of the past, people like to buy new technology: the fact that gamers think nothing of dropping £500-£1000 on a new graphics card for a marginal difference shows this and the huge preorders for the new consoles also shows that and I think (and hope) we have another generation to look forward to in the next decade
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 12,234
- Location
- UK
OMG it has the CLOUD!
... seriously.
... seriously.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 907
Well, lets say this generation lasts 10 years. The state of internet speeds at that point should be significantly better.
I'm not sure you'd want to put a major part of your console infrastructure in the hands of random ISPs all over the world. There's a big difference between downloads to be run locally, and time critical interactive gaming graphics.
ISPs will simply claim that Sony are putting so much traffic onto their networks, that unless Sony pay them lots of money to prioritise PS5 traffic, then Sony traffic will be "Traffic Managed" (to the point of the PS5 working poorly or not at all).
This way the ISP will make money from both the subscriber and Sony wanting to "parasite" their business model over the ISPs network. The customer will be caught in the middle, with Sony blaming a customer's ISP for poor performance, and the ISP pointing at Sony for relying on a residential service that carries no SLA or performance warranties.
ISPs will simply claim that Sony are putting so much traffic onto their networks, that unless Sony pay them lots of money to prioritise PS5 traffic, then Sony traffic will be "Traffic Managed" (to the point of the PS5 working poorly or not at all).
This way the ISP will make money from both the subscriber and Sony wanting to "parasite" their business model over the ISPs network. The customer will be caught in the middle, with Sony blaming a customer's ISP for poor performance, and the ISP pointing at Sony for relying on a residential service that carries no SLA or performance warranties.
There's a huge problem with those without even the slightest technical knowledge when it comes to "The Cloud" or "Cloud computing". There are varying issues but the big two are latency and performance costs.
OnLive has already failed (Staff cuts/bankruptcy/etc) and showed to many why in a lot of games, even a decent ping to a locally based server ruins responsiveness.
As for performance, it's almost as if people think all this "computing" is coming from thin air, instead of actual server farms running the game and streaming it to you just so you can play. They looked gash to save on bandwidth and processing requirements.
When you put the entire cost of being capable of running a single game game on the service end rather than the user end, it's going to cost them a lot of money. You know what it'll cost yourself to run a game decently on a PC or the costs of a console, now they pay for it and you pay a monthly fee.
It'd have to happen on a grand scale, something people will continue to use for benefits over the current options, which there are none. What you're paying for is inferior quality, unresponsive controls, heavy bandwidth usage within reason and very limited customisation. I don't know why anyone would want that and I can't see companies putting so much money into something that's inferior over current methods, well unless you're OnLive just to prove a point.
All of that can change with time and technology advancements, but the laws of physics will keep latency issues as they are for all time, until we advance that technology of course
OnLive has already failed (Staff cuts/bankruptcy/etc) and showed to many why in a lot of games, even a decent ping to a locally based server ruins responsiveness.
As for performance, it's almost as if people think all this "computing" is coming from thin air, instead of actual server farms running the game and streaming it to you just so you can play. They looked gash to save on bandwidth and processing requirements.
When you put the entire cost of being capable of running a single game game on the service end rather than the user end, it's going to cost them a lot of money. You know what it'll cost yourself to run a game decently on a PC or the costs of a console, now they pay for it and you pay a monthly fee.
It'd have to happen on a grand scale, something people will continue to use for benefits over the current options, which there are none. What you're paying for is inferior quality, unresponsive controls, heavy bandwidth usage within reason and very limited customisation. I don't know why anyone would want that and I can't see companies putting so much money into something that's inferior over current methods, well unless you're OnLive just to prove a point.
All of that can change with time and technology advancements, but the laws of physics will keep latency issues as they are for all time, until we advance that technology of course
Last edited: