You are asking me to take, on face-value, the experiences of a bunch of media crankjobs who are hailing this technology as something that will replace consoles completely? I think I'll start taking them more seriously when they stop preaching armegeddon like gleeful schoolchildren searching for candy.
I'm asking you not to throw some sort of ****ing hissy fit over a technology that probably won't affect you in the least...and that's even if it gets off the ground. I can understand disagreeing with the concept, but why in God's name did you come out with such an irrationally angry outburst? Please, help me understand that, because I'm at a complete loss.
...because it really does affect me in a huge way? I'd try explaining but it involves things like "business" which I'd rather keep out of this. Now of course this doesn't validate the fact that i had a hissy fit over it. I had a hissy fit over it because I felt like having a hissy fit over it and I thought it was totally ridiculous. If you don't like that then you are free to throw your own hissy fit over my hissy fit but it's not liable to make much of a difference.
So in what strange fantasy world have you figured out this hurdle while the people who are developing said system haven't? Could it possibly be the case that, just maybe, the developers trying to market this as a viable product have taken this completely into account and know how to deal with it? Last time I checked, the system specs required to run Crysis adequately aren't some form of arcane knowledge, revealed only to the Illuminati.
I'm not saying they haven't figured out a
way to solve it, but I question the feasibility of buying that many systems without charging ridiculous amounts of money. Alternatively, the issue is that they won't let you play the games to their fullest graphical potential, which really kills a lot of the appeal because a large number of people would only be playing it on slightly higher graphics settings and would be better off just playing it on their computer
That's the niche they're trying to fill, and if they can get the technology to work as well in full-scale execution as it seemingly has in the current setup, I could easily see them getting a significant amount of business.
I agree
anyone else wanna point out the irony here?
He has a point. HTTP is not designed for live streaming of video, and even though they have obviously spent time working around these issues, there is a lot of lag that is inherent in the physical infrastructure of the internet itself. As my friend pointed out, the absolute minimum lag time is 2 times your latent ping to the server, which on a T1 line from his college would be something like 20 ms, times 2 is 40 ms, + 1 for encoding, + 16 ms for rendering the frame on the server in the first place, + a good 5 or so ms for the computer to process the incoming video feed, which means the minimum lag is about 57 ms, or almost 4 frames per second.
Current broadband is excellent for transferring extremely large amounts of data, but it isn't well known for being particularly reliable. Again, they can compensate for this in the technology, but you are hosed if your internet cuts out or if your ISP gets clogged up, which is going to be a huge problem if you have hundreds of people in a concentrated area all with constant live streams of video feeds sucking up their entire internet connection. ISPs are NOT designed for people to be using 90% of their potential internet connection
all the time.
