Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

OnLive: the future of Video games?

Doc Holiday

By Doc Holiday,
in Huddle Lounge

Recommended Posts

outlaw4 Veteran

outlaw4

Posted
Posted

seems cool, but I'll wait and see the execution of it.

http://www.onlive.com/

this could seriously bring an end to gaming as we know it, but for some reason I doubt it.

Me thinks the main reason for doubt is the amount of bandwidth it would take to stream games to end users. With many ISP's already testing out the idea of charging people based on bandwidth usage, I can't imagine the monthly bill of an avid gamer who's being charged based on bandwidth usage.

(...and even if not charged by bandwidth, ISP's have already been accused of capping bandwidth)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Holiday Grand Master

Doc Holiday

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Me thinks the main reason for doubt is the amount of bandwidth it would take to stream games to end users. With many ISP's already testing out the idea of charging people based on bandwidth usage, I can't imagine the monthly bill of an avid gamer who's being charged based on bandwidth usage.

(...and even if not charged by bandwidth, ISP's have already been accused of capping bandwidth)

when the fiber optic wire is finally the standard and not the exception I could see this work, and that's just a matter of time.

the charging based on bandwidth thing is something that execs that don't know poo about they're own industry are saying, think of it as the same way New Coke is viewed now, sounds like a good idea in the board room, will be doomed to failure and anyone who does it will loose they're ass till they switch back.

And I think the execs know this themselves to some extent but some moron is going to try it and loose they're ass when they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zaximus Grand Master

Zaximus

Posted
Posted

American internet sucks WAY too much to run this combined with ISP's charging per bandwidth soon, no way. Maybe in Korea, Europe, etc, you know, where internet connections don't suck, they could do this. Here in America we pay more than anyone in the world for very bad internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stankowalski Newbie

stankowalski

Posted
Posted

American internet sucks WAY too much to run this combined with ISP's charging per bandwidth soon, no way. Maybe in Korea, Europe, etc, you know, where internet connections don't suck, they could do this. Here in America we pay more than anyone in the world for very bad internet.

What he said. The US is so much larger than places like Japan and some of the European countries. Our technological infrastructure would take years of upgrading to see the quality of service that places like Japan already has. I live in a rural area and we STILL don't have anything better than dial up (I use satellite and that sucks ass/is expensive/and has unbearable download limits).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dexterpyro Newbie

dexterpyro

Posted
Posted

soo...its like a 1-900 numbers for avid gamers....pay-to-play???

It sounds good on paper but i think it will take decades for everyone to get.it...I still can not get dsl or fiberoptics and wont get dsl for 2 years and fiber optics up to 5...and i live 3 miles from city limits....It will be an investment by the company to get it out there over a very long time

But i got cable internet and i signed up to be selected as a Beta tester...If they pick me i will let you know how it is

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pstall Newbie

pstall

Posted
Posted

Me thinks the main reason for doubt is the amount of bandwidth it would take to stream games to end users. With many ISP's already testing out the idea of charging people based on bandwidth usage, I can't imagine the monthly bill of an avid gamer who's being charged based on bandwidth usage.

(...and even if not charged by bandwidth, ISP's have already been accused of capping bandwidth)

This is one of the main reasons the switch to digital transmission tv.

Plus you are going to see a push in the next 5 years to seriously upgrade broadband nationwide.

Why we haven't already is beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
goodlay Newbie

goodlay

Posted
Posted

Oh yeah, it'll be the future, but not the near future. Like others have stated, in rural areas of the country, getting anything more advanced than dial up is impossible at this moment in time. I don't think it'll be huge when it comes out, just because only a small percent of the country will be able to use it. However, in 10 years or so? This will be what video games are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
natty Newbie

natty

Posted
Posted

Charging for bandwidth is not a completely horrible thing imo. Although it sucks for someone like me, it took me literally 2 years to convince my mother to get off netzero, and even now she just has the road runner light. She checks her email and does a little work related stuff but 99% of the time she's perfectly fine with dial up speeds. Now myself, I'm essentially using bandwidth 24/7 with torrents. It's really not fair for my mother and I to pay the same amount for internet access.

I think it'd be a good idea for ISPs to offer plans that are much cheaper, but put caps on network usage. Maybe offer premium, uncapped, very fast internet for $50 and go as low as $10 for limited access. It would probably increase revenue and allow ISP to upgrade their networks for people that really want it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • L-TownCat
      Report: Panthers great Luke Kuechly being eyed for big TV job

      By L-TownCat · Posted

      So the last guy who had the job got hired by his former team directly into a role he has no direct experience in?
    • Khyber53
      Report: Panthers great Luke Kuechly being eyed for big TV job

      By Khyber53 · Posted

      Hard to pass up millions for a couple of days work per week for a coaching gig in the NFL that is 60-80 hours each week during the season and a more relaxed 50 hours a week during the off season. Yeah, I'd love to see him as our DC but hard to see him giving up the cushy job there if he gets it. And he's going to be a great commentator for the network.
    • Khyber53
      2027: Sharing my thoughts on the cap without a lotta research

      By Khyber53 · Posted

      Really, I think that is where negotiations come in. If you've got a QB getting you to 10 wins but statistically he's not a great performer, then you say look you can take $22 million or you can try it on the market. Because let's face it, out there, any leadership skills that we're seeing aren't going to be on the table, it's just going to be performance and that lands him in the QB2 market, which is much, much less lucrative (although any of us would love that money).  No one is saying that Bryce will be a $50 million QB, barring something short of a miraculous jump. I'm just saying that if we are winning somehow with him at the helm, then it would be fuging stupid to dive back into the rookie pool all over again. Let's say we do hit the 10 win mark, heck, let's call it 11 and a second round in the playoffs. I think we can all say that would be a really uplifting result and one that should be doable if we have good play. What do we do then? Here's what I would offer if I were Morgan and Tepper. $25 million a year for 3 years, each year with up to $10 million in incentives for touchdowns, wins, playoff depth, being under 10 interceptions, completing a full season, passing yardage milestones, taking less than 15 sacks. Look, Bryce isn't a Ferrari, he isn't a Corvette, or a mid-level BMW. He's probably a new Toyota Sienna that will definitely get you somewhere and bring the whole team along with it, no fuss but not a lot of pizazz.  And really, it's about the destination, not about what drove you there.
×
×
  • Create New...