Onlive

[Sliver]

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/47080.html

Basically you play the game in your monitor, but it is being played on a computer hundreds of miles away. Doesn't look like they have the lag issue completely down, but this might be a good alternative for those who don't have nice computers.

http://www.onlive.com/

 

[giant384]

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=153068


stern beat you awhile ago

 

[Vegeta897]

I had often wondered about the feasibility of this before.

If internet speeds can get fast enough while screen resolution of video games doesn't continue to rise rapidly, this can definitely become a commonly used service. If internet speeds can cope with sending full color full resolution video feeds nearly instantly to a user, this would be a respectable option.

 

[Dog--]

Yea, but he's got a video.

This looks cool, I never had a top of the line PC, despite liking PC games better, they always cost more to upgrade, the damn things. I would actually pay monthly for this. If it works.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

I predicted this. You can call me Moses.

Christ works too.

Or Noah

I'd even take "coolest guy ever"

Soon very few will own technology short of fiber optic internet connected high definition displays with ultra compressed flash storage upwards of 100tbs. Tomorrow is today. You heard it from me first.

 

[Kyorisu]

I had often wondered about the feasibility of this before.

If internet speeds can get fast enough while screen resolution of video games doesn't continue to rise rapidly, this can definitely become a commonly used service. If internet speeds can cope with sending full color full resolution video feeds nearly instantly to a user, this would be a respectable option.

The internet is not fast enough. Also bandwidth and latency are completely different things.

Also worth mentioning: Even assuming you've got a magical encoding machine which only adds a few milliseconds to the latency, there's the simple fact that most video streamed over the Internet is done through a relatively large buffer.

In fact, Flash audio and video (Youtube and friends) seems to just download as much of the video as it can, as fast as it can, and start playing once it thinks it has enough.

This means it's possible for your connection to drop out completely for a second, or just vary by the amounts Internet traffic typically does, and so long as it comes back in time, your video will just keep playing.

This applies even to most sane "live" broadcasts.

Trying to do it actually live, within a few milliseconds, is completely different. The slightest blip in connectivity, which a sufficiently buffered stream would skip right over, is going to be catastrophic here.

And just in case it wasn't obvious: Buffers inherently add latency, proportional to their size. Add a buffer that can handle even half a second of connection trouble, and you've just added half a second between the time the player says "turn left", and the time they see the camera turn left.

I mention all of this because I suspect that the reason you'd think this is a good idea is, you've got a Roku, or you've used YouTube, or even Skype, and you've concluded that the Internet is now fast enough to do video. Maybe, but I don't think it's fast enough to do the kind of high quality, live, low-latency video demanded by a gamer.

http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1173481&cid=27311675

 

[Vegeta897]

I know the internet is not fast enough. Hence the point of my post. Some day, the internet WILL be powerful enough to send, say, streaming 1280x960 video feed from a computer playing a game. But chances are by then the standard resolution in games would be vastly higher.

And I know latency is not bandwidth. When I said 'fast' I meant the ability to carry enough bandwidth at a high enough speed.

 

[Dynasty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09f9xXxdcI4&feature=channel

First half is Onlive, sounds interesting. Cheaper than a Wii? Hmmmmmmm.....