Upgrading all the specs in a brand new chassis, and putting it out on the market - even calling it "PS3.5" still counts as a new console.
The problem with patcher and most of his claims is that he says them so broadly it's hard to be "wrong". That doesn't make him right either. There probably won't be another generation of consoles where we see a huge shift in computing architecture. There's going to be more though.
The problem with patcher and most of his claims is that he says them so broadly it's hard to be "wrong". That doesn't make him right either. There probably won't be another generation of consoles where we see a huge shift in computing architecture. There's going to be more though.
[QUOTE="bobtheduck, post: 0]Patcher is like omnivore crap in an industry of carnivore crap...
I mean, he's moderately better than his fellows, but who really cares when he's still full of crap?
I'd love to give that man an enema and send him home in a matchbox.
8x bluray drive... Maybe 12x or 16x by the time PS4 releases
4 or 8 gigs of ram
2 core, 12-18 SPU cell or Dual-architecture quadcore Intel + Cell (I think Sony and Toshiba should get back together... Put their differences behind them with the bluray vs HD-DVD battle, and make a dual architecture, or even tri-architecture (Intel, PPC, and MIPS?) though that may be pushing it... Dual architecture is already done in laptops, so the tech is miniaturized, if not quite cheap yet.
More efficient Graphics cards... I'm sure new shader techniques will be invented that the RSX can't do natively, and probably already exist
Full BC (PS1, 2, 3, P, Pocketstation, with no region locking on PS2 games... Though I doubt that would ever happen)... Maybe even Sony licensing non-nintendo, non-microsoft systems for a Virtual console type setup of their own (Genesis, Saturn, Dreamcast, Turbo Graphx, master system, I'd say MSX but that was a microsoft system, so no Metal Gear 2 in its original form, unfortunately... Wonder Swan, Neo Geo, Neo Geo pocket color, maybe even a Mame setup with more arcade games than just Midway and Sony owned games)
There's always room for improvement, there's just no more room for sony to sell another format. This will be more like the xbox --> 360 upgrade than the PS2 --> PS3 upgrade.[/quote]
Whoa, hold on!
While what your listing would be, in all fairness, pretty kick arse, do you realise how much that would cost? Do you realise how long that would take to develop? For that Virtual Console idea you must take in the considerations like licensing and royalties, that alone could kick start Sega's hardware development with all the monies that Sony would have to give Sega.
I consider myself a optimist but a realistic one at that and to say suggest that Sony should pump all that tech into one console would be insane! The investment that Sony ploughed into the R&D of the PS3 ran into the billions putting SCE into massive losses in the revenue graphs. To do the same thing twice would be corporate suicide!
I reckon that Sony will more cautious with the PS4. Yes, upgrade the requirements like the graphics card, refine the Cell and its SPEs but the dual-architecture will surely have to wait. It's way too expensive at the moment.
I mean, he's moderately better than his fellows, but who really cares when he's still full of crap?
I'd love to give that man an enema and send him home in a matchbox.
8x bluray drive... Maybe 12x or 16x by the time PS4 releases
4 or 8 gigs of ram
2 core, 12-18 SPU cell or Dual-architecture quadcore Intel + Cell (I think Sony and Toshiba should get back together... Put their differences behind them with the bluray vs HD-DVD battle, and make a dual architecture, or even tri-architecture (Intel, PPC, and MIPS?) though that may be pushing it... Dual architecture is already done in laptops, so the tech is miniaturized, if not quite cheap yet.
More efficient Graphics cards... I'm sure new shader techniques will be invented that the RSX can't do natively, and probably already exist
Full BC (PS1, 2, 3, P, Pocketstation, with no region locking on PS2 games... Though I doubt that would ever happen)... Maybe even Sony licensing non-nintendo, non-microsoft systems for a Virtual console type setup of their own (Genesis, Saturn, Dreamcast, Turbo Graphx, master system, I'd say MSX but that was a microsoft system, so no Metal Gear 2 in its original form, unfortunately... Wonder Swan, Neo Geo, Neo Geo pocket color, maybe even a Mame setup with more arcade games than just Midway and Sony owned games)
There's always room for improvement, there's just no more room for sony to sell another format. This will be more like the xbox --> 360 upgrade than the PS2 --> PS3 upgrade.[/quote]
Whoa, hold on!
While what your listing would be, in all fairness, pretty kick arse, do you realise how much that would cost? Do you realise how long that would take to develop? For that Virtual Console idea you must take in the considerations like licensing and royalties, that alone could kick start Sega's hardware development with all the monies that Sony would have to give Sega.
I consider myself a optimist but a realistic one at that and to say suggest that Sony should pump all that tech into one console would be insane! The investment that Sony ploughed into the R&D of the PS3 ran into the billions putting SCE into massive losses in the revenue graphs. To do the same thing twice would be corporate suicide!
I reckon that Sony will more cautious with the PS4. Yes, upgrade the requirements like the graphics card, refine the Cell and its SPEs but the dual-architecture will surely have to wait. It's way too expensive at the moment.
No more consoles = 80% of the gaming market disappearing which means third parties literally bankrupting themselves from lots of piracy on the PC platform. No more consoles = I quit gaming altogether. I think my interest in buying games this generation has just piqued. I refuse to pay for a service such as OnLive! I might as well purchase past consoles and games too so that I have plenty to play and show my kids before these services take over what little market there will be left.
[QUOTE="Fulltime Gamer, post: 0]Whoa, hold on!
While what your listing would be, in all fairness, pretty kick arse, do you realise how much that would cost? Do you realise how long that would take to develop? For that Virtual Console idea you must take in the considerations like licensing and royalties, that alone could kick start Sega's hardware development with all the monies that Sony would have to give Sega.
I consider myself a optimist but a realistic one at that and to say suggest that Sony should pump all that tech into one console would be insane! The investment that Sony ploughed into the R&D of the PS3 ran into the billions putting SCE into massive losses in the revenue graphs. To do the same thing twice would be corporate suicide!
I reckon that Sony will more cautious with the PS4. Yes, upgrade the requirements like the graphics card, refine the Cell and its SPEs but the dual-architecture will surely have to wait. It's way too expensive at the moment.[/quote]You must have misread his post. He was asked to list technology in the PS3 that could be improved at this moment. Again, he was was only listing things that COULD be improved, not WILL be improved.
While what your listing would be, in all fairness, pretty kick arse, do you realise how much that would cost? Do you realise how long that would take to develop? For that Virtual Console idea you must take in the considerations like licensing and royalties, that alone could kick start Sega's hardware development with all the monies that Sony would have to give Sega.
I consider myself a optimist but a realistic one at that and to say suggest that Sony should pump all that tech into one console would be insane! The investment that Sony ploughed into the R&D of the PS3 ran into the billions putting SCE into massive losses in the revenue graphs. To do the same thing twice would be corporate suicide!
I reckon that Sony will more cautious with the PS4. Yes, upgrade the requirements like the graphics card, refine the Cell and its SPEs but the dual-architecture will surely have to wait. It's way too expensive at the moment.[/quote]You must have misread his post. He was asked to list technology in the PS3 that could be improved at this moment. Again, he was was only listing things that COULD be improved, not WILL be improved.
I listed improvement that can be done right now with current tech to show that Sony can if they want build a more powerful ps3.5 that would not be fundamentally different than the current ps3. That new ps3 will cost them next to nothing in R&D and developers would not complain about it. That was to show that if Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are dividing the market right now somebody else might come up with a better product in a few years if all three wait too long to upgrade. Nintendo is a special case because they will try to milk the wii success for all it worth but on the other hand the wii is an upgrade Gamecube and it starting to show! If I had to bet I say Microsoft is going to jump first.
[QUOTE="kopkiwi, post: 0]For an analyst, he's pretty thick.[/quote]
I think that's the definition of an Analyst
Most are definitely pretty think. I see analyst reports in the industry I work in (Semiconductor) and just about every report has me shaking my head at how far off from reality they are.
Unfortunately stock values are significantly impacted by Analyst reports.
TAZ427
I think that's the definition of an Analyst
Most are definitely pretty think. I see analyst reports in the industry I work in (Semiconductor) and just about every report has me shaking my head at how far off from reality they are.
Unfortunately stock values are significantly impacted by Analyst reports.
TAZ427
C
If the PS4 will just be an upgrade in terms of the Cell Broadband 2, i really don't see how development cost would increase dramatically. If this was really true, people like Crytek would just stop making games ... more powerful hardware = more expensive development ... assuming such a reality is true. I mean graphics have pretty much going to reach a plateau next generation of hardware. This will pretty much be CGI in realtime and from then on it will just be about smarter AI, more people on the screen at one time and innovative gameplay.
[QUOTE="Fulltime Gamer, post: 0]Ain't it funny that half this forum (only a guess) used to agree with this guy and now that he has said something we don't like we turn on him, like a pack of hungry wolves.
Fair enough...I'll join ya! BLAH blah blah...[/quote]
Not exactly! Well, I can only speak for myself on this one. I think Pachter is a moron to be honest! He's been way off the mark too many times for me to take seriously. At this point, I think he's an attention ***** to be honest.
Fair enough...I'll join ya! BLAH blah blah...[/quote]
Not exactly! Well, I can only speak for myself on this one. I think Pachter is a moron to be honest! He's been way off the mark too many times for me to take seriously. At this point, I think he's an attention ***** to be honest.
i completely agree with their sentiments here, and am quite frankly amazed that so many people here think they are so full of ****.
console gaming as we know it is running on borrowed time. the business model simply doesnt make sense anymore and hasnt for some time.
WHO is making money on console gaming right now (besides nintendo)? Sony isnt, MS isnt. they both sunk ~5 BILLION into the 360/PS3, and are now making a couple million back a quarter. Devs are closing up shop and/or merging left and right because dev cost is exponentially spiraling upwards, increased piracy and used game sales, and being forced to develop on drastically different, proprietary hardware. game prices are going up. who is making money?
i have been saying it for a long time, but IF there is a 720/PS4, they will be the LAST of the traditional "console generations."
pretty soon the way we game is going to be re-designed from the foundation. we dont know what exactly is going to end up happening, it might even be something like onlive (right now im thinking that it probly WILL be something like this). but one thing is for SURE: there will be no PS5/xbox4 in the form of consoles like we think of them now.
console gaming as we know it is running on borrowed time. the business model simply doesnt make sense anymore and hasnt for some time.
WHO is making money on console gaming right now (besides nintendo)? Sony isnt, MS isnt. they both sunk ~5 BILLION into the 360/PS3, and are now making a couple million back a quarter. Devs are closing up shop and/or merging left and right because dev cost is exponentially spiraling upwards, increased piracy and used game sales, and being forced to develop on drastically different, proprietary hardware. game prices are going up. who is making money?
i have been saying it for a long time, but IF there is a 720/PS4, they will be the LAST of the traditional "console generations."
pretty soon the way we game is going to be re-designed from the foundation. we dont know what exactly is going to end up happening, it might even be something like onlive (right now im thinking that it probly WILL be something like this). but one thing is for SURE: there will be no PS5/xbox4 in the form of consoles like we think of them now.
F
Depends on what you define a console as, I suppose. If you mean: a mass- produced lite- edition of a typical user- computer, built with the intention of artificially prolonging old tech. Then yes, obviously consoles are living on borrowed time.
If you mean: a specialised machine with a reasonably limited life- cycle, intended to make otherwise economically unviable technology useful for development of various kinds - then no, you're wrong.
The thing is that all the people who insist consoles are gone are all advocating specialised machines for particular purposes in applications, in entertainment generally, etc, etc. Which is simply the trend now that the infinite gigahertz barrier won't be broken, and so on. Worse, they never define what they mean a console is - so I'm offering an interpretation on my own. That their idea of a console is something that sells an existing product to a new demographic. And that will fail, I have no doubt about that either. It simply doesn't pay for itself to create something that competes directly with and undermines hardware and OS sales in the other end of your business, for example. Nor does it work to decrease development cost so far jobs are lost - you don't create a viable market that way.
While what does pay off is creating a solution for promoting new ideas and new development. The question is just how large the investments should be, and if the entry point for creating any product is too high. That's been the difficulty with the ps3 and some titles on the xbox, and while DS and mobile phone development, etc, is much easier to market.
But there will be specialised hardware in the future as well, and it's not exactly impossible to see where for example even the ps3 will make a profit in both hardware and software sales. Even with the 360 artificially deflating prices, and so on.
If you mean: a specialised machine with a reasonably limited life- cycle, intended to make otherwise economically unviable technology useful for development of various kinds - then no, you're wrong.
The thing is that all the people who insist consoles are gone are all advocating specialised machines for particular purposes in applications, in entertainment generally, etc, etc. Which is simply the trend now that the infinite gigahertz barrier won't be broken, and so on. Worse, they never define what they mean a console is - so I'm offering an interpretation on my own. That their idea of a console is something that sells an existing product to a new demographic. And that will fail, I have no doubt about that either. It simply doesn't pay for itself to create something that competes directly with and undermines hardware and OS sales in the other end of your business, for example. Nor does it work to decrease development cost so far jobs are lost - you don't create a viable market that way.
While what does pay off is creating a solution for promoting new ideas and new development. The question is just how large the investments should be, and if the entry point for creating any product is too high. That's been the difficulty with the ps3 and some titles on the xbox, and while DS and mobile phone development, etc, is much easier to market.
But there will be specialised hardware in the future as well, and it's not exactly impossible to see where for example even the ps3 will make a profit in both hardware and software sales. Even with the 360 artificially deflating prices, and so on.
even if onlive is not the answer this year it will be in the not so distant future, 10 years back people were saying that people wouldnt move from cd's to downloads, 2 years ago films weren't going to make the switch and now steam, live, xna have shown their abilities.
sure we dont have 5mb connections this year but in 2012 we all will.
Total war can't posssibly be more laggy online than it is on full with my current pc and to be frank I cant see myself investing in an upgrade untill i've tried the new delivery.
besides to be frank games are beginning to look 'good enough'
sure we dont have 5mb connections this year but in 2012 we all will.
Total war can't posssibly be more laggy online than it is on full with my current pc and to be frank I cant see myself investing in an upgrade untill i've tried the new delivery.
besides to be frank games are beginning to look 'good enough'
[QUOTE="fleinn, post: 0]If you mean: a specialised machine with a reasonably limited life- cycle, intended to make otherwise economically unviable technology useful for development of various kinds - then no, you're wrong. [/quote]
then we will agree to disagree. the concept of a static unit that has approximately the same proprietary design inside of it that sells for 5-10 years and then is replaced IS going to end, and soon. if not this gen like pachter suggests, then next gen like the other analysts suggest.
the way i see it, there will be one of two outcomes, consoles as we know it will become TV based computer systems where you have to upgrade the ram and videocards and all that to continue to play the new games, or something like onlive will take over.
console right NOW are almost computer systems anyways. they browse the internet, they have firmware updates, you can install games on them, there are title patches, etc.
then we will agree to disagree. the concept of a static unit that has approximately the same proprietary design inside of it that sells for 5-10 years and then is replaced IS going to end, and soon. if not this gen like pachter suggests, then next gen like the other analysts suggest.
the way i see it, there will be one of two outcomes, consoles as we know it will become TV based computer systems where you have to upgrade the ram and videocards and all that to continue to play the new games, or something like onlive will take over.
console right NOW are almost computer systems anyways. they browse the internet, they have firmware updates, you can install games on them, there are title patches, etc.
F
[QUOTE="roland 6128, post: 0]even if onlive is not the answer this year it will be in the not so distant future, 10 years back people were saying that people wouldnt move from cd's to downloads, 2 years ago films weren't going to make the switch and now steam, live, xna have shown their abilities.
sure we dont have 5mb connections this year but in 2012 we all will.[/quote]
Imo, it will only happen in content- providers' wet dreams, where they can mete out all types of content in small increments, and control who can see it at all times, in what quality, in what regions, and for what price.
You want to know why Bittorrent isn't being used commercially? So you could, say, download a torrent of live content within a limited time based on a subscription (such as for a tv show, eminently suitable for this), and with it save incredible amounts of central server load? It's not because it's bad tech - it's not because it's undoable while still invalidating downloaded content after the client closes, etc - it's not because Bittorrent has a bad wrap either. It's because it means releasing content "uncontrollably". So content providers would rather use expensive and huge server rigs, and proprietary software such as flash- applications, rather than a functional and useable solution that actually is possible to use for seeing reasonably high res content live (or with some preparation) right now on any 2Mbit connection.. on any computer.
In other words, the only way certain companies see this as working is if it replaces the way (they think) physical media works now as far as "platform security" goes.
So will MSLive squared ever take off? Along with their other central hub reinvention of the internet schemes? You'd better hope not.
*nods* of course - as long as we're sitting on root- hubs that never were designed for speed, and kilometers of copper where fiber- optics would've been more convenient, lag is going to be the problem, not transfer throughput.
sure we dont have 5mb connections this year but in 2012 we all will.[/quote]
Imo, it will only happen in content- providers' wet dreams, where they can mete out all types of content in small increments, and control who can see it at all times, in what quality, in what regions, and for what price.
You want to know why Bittorrent isn't being used commercially? So you could, say, download a torrent of live content within a limited time based on a subscription (such as for a tv show, eminently suitable for this), and with it save incredible amounts of central server load? It's not because it's bad tech - it's not because it's undoable while still invalidating downloaded content after the client closes, etc - it's not because Bittorrent has a bad wrap either. It's because it means releasing content "uncontrollably". So content providers would rather use expensive and huge server rigs, and proprietary software such as flash- applications, rather than a functional and useable solution that actually is possible to use for seeing reasonably high res content live (or with some preparation) right now on any 2Mbit connection.. on any computer.
In other words, the only way certain companies see this as working is if it replaces the way (they think) physical media works now as far as "platform security" goes.
So will MSLive squared ever take off? Along with their other central hub reinvention of the internet schemes? You'd better hope not.
*nods* of course - as long as we're sitting on root- hubs that never were designed for speed, and kilometers of copper where fiber- optics would've been more convenient, lag is going to be the problem, not transfer throughput.
I dont see much of a route for non software sales supported consoles/upgradeab le tv's for the same reason they have failed time after time - the initial barrier to entry is set to high.
essentialy people underestimate the long term costs of console ownership.
there naturaly have been cases where the reduction in charges to 3rd parties has helped (n64/ps) but this has been due to a reduction in the costs of distrubution (carts/cd's)
I see onlive as the best of both worlds to be frank, a reduction in distrubution costs, a reduction in the barrier to entry and (aside from pc piracy) a reduction in the long term costs of ownership.
essentialy people underestimate the long term costs of console ownership.
there naturaly have been cases where the reduction in charges to 3rd parties has helped (n64/ps) but this has been due to a reduction in the costs of distrubution (carts/cd's)
I see onlive as the best of both worlds to be frank, a reduction in distrubution costs, a reduction in the barrier to entry and (aside from pc piracy) a reduction in the long term costs of ownership.
fleinnI do wonder however where the lag is coming from though. If SF works well then it isn't the communication of the basic information of movement.
As such then it is in the distrubution of the image? I'm not utterly convinced that this is much of a case though as video streaming of standard def works without cache reasonably well.
nor do I think it is the latency as I can happily ping servers on the other side of the world in less time than a screen refresh....
As I said before though - people laughed at movie download and all I get now is friends with hard drives of movies.
its a services world were moving to
As such then it is in the distrubution of the image? I'm not utterly convinced that this is much of a case though as video streaming of standard def works without cache reasonably well.
nor do I think it is the latency as I can happily ping servers on the other side of the world in less time than a screen refresh....
As I said before though - people laughed at movie download and all I get now is friends with hard drives of movies.
its a services world were moving to
aayman_farzand
Most consoles are off most of the time so there is definately a fair saving to be made in the hardware.
Most consoles are off most of the time so there is definately a fair saving to be made in the hardware.
F
[QUOTE="webshark, post: 0]then we will agree to disagree. the concept of a static unit that has approximately the same proprietary design inside of it that sells for 5-10 years and then is replaced IS going to end, and soon. if not this gen like pachter suggests, then next gen like the other analysts suggest.
the way i see it, there will be one of two outcomes, consoles as we know it will become TV based computer systems where you have to upgrade the ram and videocards and all that to continue to play the new games, or something like onlive will take over.
console right NOW are almost computer systems anyways. they browse the internet, they have firmware updates, you can install games on them, there are title patches, etc.[/quote]
..right. I'm just saying the ones who will fall off are the ones who see consoles as a way to artificially prolong old technology, instead of sponsoring new ideas and more entertainment. I mean, even Microsoft was successful at that if you know where to look - but that was never what they were peddling in. They were selling a platform, not primarily new ideas.
Beyond that, there will always be some need for specialised hardware when providing entertainment, so that market will exist as long as there is a market in creating entertainment such as games. But yes, hopefully consoles as we know it, with software blocks put in through company decisions and fears of piracy and so on and so forth will die out, without being replaced by something worse.
I can hope, at least.
the way i see it, there will be one of two outcomes, consoles as we know it will become TV based computer systems where you have to upgrade the ram and videocards and all that to continue to play the new games, or something like onlive will take over.
console right NOW are almost computer systems anyways. they browse the internet, they have firmware updates, you can install games on them, there are title patches, etc.[/quote]
..right. I'm just saying the ones who will fall off are the ones who see consoles as a way to artificially prolong old technology, instead of sponsoring new ideas and more entertainment. I mean, even Microsoft was successful at that if you know where to look - but that was never what they were peddling in. They were selling a platform, not primarily new ideas.
Beyond that, there will always be some need for specialised hardware when providing entertainment, so that market will exist as long as there is a market in creating entertainment such as games. But yes, hopefully consoles as we know it, with software blocks put in through company decisions and fears of piracy and so on and so forth will die out, without being replaced by something worse.
I can hope, at least.
it is less expensive to produce and maintain the cloud for services, the industry I work in has been moving towards it now for 8 years.
the only restriction is bandwidth, although people say this is a problem - anyone who works in the IT sector knows how fast these things change.
btw I still love client services in the IT industry - but the support is hideously expensive.
the only restriction is bandwidth, although people say this is a problem - anyone who works in the IT sector knows how fast these things change.
btw I still love client services in the IT industry - but the support is hideously expensive.
F
Yes! Interesting subject! lol. ..No, in a nutshell, the typical problem you need to solve on smaller networks is that client computers aren't fast enough to respond all the time. Hence streaming content, just assuming it all falls down on the client, and letting the client push commands back to the server once in a while with "pause", "pan", "uh, oh, lagging", and so on. There are good solutions for this now - but the processing power and net traffic you need to drive tv like this eventually becomes very large - so it's not doable on a large scale. It's of course possible to imagine some trick with decoding or streaming similarly to what you're doing on disc now. Or maybe allowing for a form of distributed processing we don't really understand yet, utilizing partly decoded streams while playing levels, perhaps? Or it will be a type of parallel solution that can read much wider address- spaces, in a world where broadband transport can easily compensate for the massively increased packet loss on the current setups, and so on.
But until I see a practical example of OyLive! having a cluster serving some 50.000 clients at the same time, this is one part made up and one part make- belief. It's just not going to happen. ...And when it does, I'm betting the tech we will have to drive it will proably fit skynet in your pocket.
*nods* Services in the sense of "when I want it", I agree. :mrgreen:
But until I see a practical example of OyLive! having a cluster serving some 50.000 clients at the same time, this is one part made up and one part make- belief. It's just not going to happen. ...And when it does, I'm betting the tech we will have to drive it will proably fit skynet in your pocket.
*nods* Services in the sense of "when I want it", I agree. :mrgreen:
flein
I dont see how this is a client side issue, the amount of of processor/reddyness time required is nominal. a good example would be quake 3 which is a storm online.
if there is any issue it is surely the re representation of the user input back to the user (ie the image transferred over the net)
this is the sole reason flash came to the fore, to reduce the amount of data to be sent to the user.
regarding skynet - I dont see processing power being an issue what so ever, we already have the clouds to do this work and the cost effectiveness is undeniable, the issue is whether a syatem can represent the results of my actions 24 times a second back to me with a latency less than I can recognise... given my input is in the region of bits ps I see little issue if ping is fast.
thoughts?
I dont see how this is a client side issue, the amount of of processor/reddyness time required is nominal. a good example would be quake 3 which is a storm online.
if there is any issue it is surely the re representation of the user input back to the user (ie the image transferred over the net)
this is the sole reason flash came to the fore, to reduce the amount of data to be sent to the user.
regarding skynet - I dont see processing power being an issue what so ever, we already have the clouds to do this work and the cost effectiveness is undeniable, the issue is whether a syatem can represent the results of my actions 24 times a second back to me with a latency less than I can recognise... given my input is in the region of bits ps I see little issue if ping is fast.
thoughts?
F
[QUOTE="roland 6128, post: 0]flein
I dont see how this is a client side issue, the amount of of processor/reddyness time required is nominal. a good example would be quake 3 which is a storm online.[/quote]
Well, you only transfer coordinates back and forth. Usually there's also some smoothing involved both on the server/ client communication and on the visual representation, to avoid that it looks as if it's lagging. If you only did that on the hub instead, and streamed data to be decompressed to a client.. Sounds great and nice...
The round- trip might be somewhere around 100ms, so I suppose it could work. If it's possible to create some system to read a huge amount of input very quickly from the different clients, and generate independent threads with the useable data, that might also work, I guess. Could even be that hosting game- worlds would actually lessen the necessary computing power, things of that sort.
The thing that makes it impossible, I think, is the idea of streaming compressed data asynchronously without interruptions on so short time- units to a large amount of clients... at least if the image quality is supposed to be reasonably high. Same with video if you can't buffer, and so on. The same with having a "cloud" to take care of the processing - if the internal speed is dependent on network traffic, you don't get low enough latency. So the idea of 60fps 1080p image on this is a bit laughable.
I dont see how this is a client side issue, the amount of of processor/reddyness time required is nominal. a good example would be quake 3 which is a storm online.[/quote]
Well, you only transfer coordinates back and forth. Usually there's also some smoothing involved both on the server/ client communication and on the visual representation, to avoid that it looks as if it's lagging. If you only did that on the hub instead, and streamed data to be decompressed to a client.. Sounds great and nice...
The round- trip might be somewhere around 100ms, so I suppose it could work. If it's possible to create some system to read a huge amount of input very quickly from the different clients, and generate independent threads with the useable data, that might also work, I guess. Could even be that hosting game- worlds would actually lessen the necessary computing power, things of that sort.
The thing that makes it impossible, I think, is the idea of streaming compressed data asynchronously without interruptions on so short time- units to a large amount of clients... at least if the image quality is supposed to be reasonably high. Same with video if you can't buffer, and so on. The same with having a "cloud" to take care of the processing - if the internal speed is dependent on network traffic, you don't get low enough latency. So the idea of 60fps 1080p image on this is a bit laughable.