"Game's will be Internet based" - Your thoughts?

BlackDragon

BlackDragon

BlackDragon

Soldato
Joined
9 Jun 2006
Posts
2,642
If you've been reading news on tech sites, you'll have seen that a bunch of 'experts' believe gaming will be done through the internet.

I just can't see this happening for a number of reasons.

The network infrastructure just isn't in place for this, already it has been said in the past (many months ago in magazines) that the Internet was struggling to cope with the huge amount of traffic from video streaming sites. So how is it going to cope with sending all the rendered screens at a fast enough rate? Can't see it reacting too well on fast games like CSS, CoD4, etc.

They are gonna need a heck of a lot of servers somewhere to actually render all these games for the millions of gamers there are. Who would pay for all these servers?

If I have interpreted it right, they say Flash will be used to render all these games. Somehow I can't see games looking like Crysis or UT3, in flash.

So what are everyones thoughts on this?
 
Got any links? It sounds like some kind of misinterpretation to me...

I can imagine all gaming/everything will go via the internet eventually. Not being rendered through flash though :p Stuff like STEAM will become more and more all-encompasing.
 
This can already kinda happen with the ps3 and psp, it ps3 does all the rendering and the psp is basically a controller with a tv screen, you can also access it wirelessly over the internet. Dont see the point of it tho because online gameing is nowwhere near as demaning on your internet as it would be if you were effectivly streaming 1680x1050 content? unless Im mistaken too.
 
Last edited:
There could be some interesting things happening with flash in the future, wont the next version convert c/c++ code to flash ? could be the start of cooler internet based games.
 
Data sent over fibre optic networks is subject to the limitations of the speed of light, which means interactivity between the server and gamer will never have a latency below 70 milliseconds.

That could impact the kinds of experiences it was possible to offer people in the future because data could not move back and forth fast enough.
Click to expand...

I can see flash games becoming more popular, detailed and professional but the latency issue does concern me.
 
I don't think internet gaming in the sense of having everything streamed to the computer is practical but certainly Steam and others like it will become more and more prominent.
 
Its not feasible right now. Unlike video audio where the data exists, a game will create the virtual enviroment as it goes. Crysis melts every cpu gpu it runs on. Needing 100% of a single top end gpu. Now your server farm needs 500000 8800gtx's ;)

Just a crude example but you get the idea. lag from the uk to usa run at around 100ms. And that is a hard limit of physics it can not be reduced; not good for gamplay.

And do nt think for a second such a game could not be pirated, just takes a single it tec to copy the master code, and then every one with a full pc at home could enjoy the game without the waiting or lag endured by paying customers.

I dont think any one would want to play games this way.
 
I see the same problem as that exhibited by EA online games...

As soon as the publisher wants you to buy the next version then they will pull the dedicated servers, you can guarantee that they'll have EULA's that enable them to get away with anything.

At the end of the day i don't trust companies to not abuse the potential to 'persuade' people to buy new versions of games.
 
chimaera said:
I see the same problem as that exhibited by EA online games...

As soon as the publisher wants you to buy the next version then they will pull the dedicated servers, you can guarantee that they'll have EULA's that enable them to get away with anything.

At the end of the day i don't trust companies to not abuse the potential to 'persuade' people to buy new versions of games.
Click to expand...



While I'm not sure about your specific point, your general one is correct: what they actually mean by saying this is: "We hope/plan to do it this way so we can have near-total control over what you play, when, and for how much. " And it will never happen anyway, so don't worry about it.


M
 
I don't think running games on a server and having a video feed to your PC will be feasible any time soon. At least not to the quality we're used to. 1280*1024 60fps videos would take up a massive amount of bandwidth. Even compressed that would be a lot at any reasonable quality. Lag would be a massive problem too.

However, game content being streamed from a server but run locally is much more realistic. I'm guessing that's how MMORPGs work anyway, so I think it's quite reasonable that it could start happening for other games too. Plus I think web browser integration is also reasonable. We can already run 3D OpenGL based Java games within a browser. There could be a system where any sort of software could be integrated into a browser, or at least be launched from a browser. It's just a matter of someone making standardised APIs to do this. Pretty sure this stuff is already in the works. I believe id are working on an ad-supported, browser-integrated version of Quake 3.
 
Meridian said:
While I'm not sure about your specific point, your general one is correct: what they actually mean by saying this is: "We hope/plan to do it this way so we can have near-total control over what you play, when, and for how much. " And it will never happen anyway, so don't worry about it.


M
Click to expand...

It's highly unlikely admittedly but to a lesser degree EA are doing this now, once FIFA 09 comes out 6 months later the multiplayer servers for FIFA 08 will be taken offline, totally rendering a certain percent of the game unplayable.

I just think it gives them too much power and will be abused.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom