Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
My current video card cost me $150 and my cpu/board combo would be about $250 these days. So for a total cost of about $500 I have a quad core machine with an ATI HD5870 that runs Crysis in ultra high mode at 86 frames per second.
With this set-up I can buy any game I like, play it whenever I like (net connection be damned), and never have to deal with lag. Not to mention the added benefits of the processor speed when doing work and other useful things like using it as my media server.
This service will be subscription based and while I don't know the exact cost, $15-20 per month is very likely- and there may even be a start-up fee.
So in two years you will have paid more than the price of the computer. Some may argue that 2 years is enough time for a machine to become completely outdated, although I would then point out that I have had my quadcore q6600 processor and board for just over two years, and the only part I have upgraded in the past two years was the video card.
Short story - isn't it cheaper and a better investment to just buy/build a machine?
Thin client always looks good on paper at first. But keeping up the back-end for the long term has never been practical. You just can't keep everybody happy all the time.
@bigbaddaddy: Virtual Machines. They've already said they'll be using them. Which allows them to scale from Sims upto Crysis 2.
Also means if someone goes AFK they can do a save state n load someone up until they come back.
The only possible downside I could see to this is losing the long-standing effect of gamers driving down the cost of electronics.
As a video editor, I'd like to personally thank each and every one of you obsessive computer gamers, because I know that we home editors couldn't have driven the demand for awesome hardware at cheap prices by ourselves. We've had some good times, my friends.
@i38warhawk: *Technically* speaking, yes, you're correct, there's no reason why it couldn't be done.
But you'd have to be out of your friggin' mind to waste the time uploading all of your raw files to the cloud for the sole purpose of getting some extra performance. For just an average size project I'd work on, I could get into the tens or hundreds of gigabytes of raw video easy. And I don't even work on full-length feature films or such. With the current average broadband speed (and especially with folks hitting data caps), that's just not a practical solution.
Motion graphics, maybe, though. I mean, you can create some pretty screaming graphics inside After Effects alone, so you'd only need to use up bandwidth for downloading the final file. And that would also be where you'd need more power. Honestly, I think that could happen very easily.
In the meantime, I have had the idea myself to get a major power rig set up at home, then get a cheap laptop to remote login to the desktop, give myself the combo of power and portability. Power in the desktop I wouldn't afford in a laptop of comparable price. In concept, it's the same basic idea, except I have direct access to the server in this case, so I can import my videos without eating up huge amounts of bandwidth/hitting data limits.
im betting if you have the money to pay for the internet connection required for this, you have the money to get a decent gaming pc. At any rate, my 300kbs dsl probably doesnt cut it....
@enchantedduck: Stop with the lies. If I have $55 a month to spend on computer-related stuff and I feel the need to spend $50 on broadband (since thats what Comcast rips us off for), then no way in hell can I save up for a decent gaming computer at $5/month saved.
Stop thinking of broadband like a luxury, because for many of us, it's not. We pay for the broadband first and worry about non-essentials like upgrading later.
@blash: Yes! I pay for internet too and have about $10 extra to spend a month. So far I've got 150 months left until I can stop using the computers at my library for "special time", and get my own rig.
I feel like this is essentially a badass system based wherever the server is with very very long extension cords going to one's house (for the controller and video). I am really curious about lag time.
The "boner" moment? I thought boner meant to make a mistake (among other things). A "lowly Dell Studio 15 plays Crysis without even flinching" is hardly a boner moment.
Let's think about this for a second. Right now if you play a MP game like say, Call of Duty, there are 3 primary performance bottlenecks: the server, the pipe, and the client. Currently the server does all the math, the pipe transmits the results or those calculations along with other meta data between the client and server, and the client renders it all, as well as taking input from the gamer and sending it to the server, via the pipe. This model is typical client-server computing which has been popular for quite some time now.
Now they want to take the rendering and move it from the client to the server. Okay, that's not a bad idea, it allows for very thin clients. This is the general premise behind web-based applications such as Salesforce.com etc. However, there are two problems that need to be addressed for this to work.
1. Rendering: Currently if 20 people are playing a game that means there are 20 videos being rendered. In order for this to work a "server cloud" would have to have the power of 20 high end video cards along with the CPU and RAM to manage all the variables. Now multiply that by the number of people playing at any one time. Now clean the brain matter off your screen from your head exploding.
2. Bandwidth: Now you are not only sending a data stream back and forth, but fully rendered HD video. The amount of bandwidth used for one 20 player game that lasts 30 minutes would be tremendous on both the server and client side. And with several major ISPs (Time Warner anyone) setting bandwidth caps you could blow through that in one game.
This is an interesting idea and will make an excellent proof-of-concept, but I simply can't imagine it is ready for prime time or will be anytime soon. Not only do I think the tech is not there, but only people who buy more than say a dozen games a year will be willing to pay for it. I only play 3-4 games a year, so it would have to be less than $10/month for me to even consider it. Oh, and they would have to carry the games I want to play.
@dicknervous: I don't see rendering as a problem because that's scalable; you can always put more hardware to it to deal with the problem. Same with bandwidth.
The one problem they will have the hardest time is latency over internet. I don't think they'll ever get that same buttery-smooth movement you get playing locally on your PC.
Of course, they can always solve that problem with auto-targeting. :)
@FlashSandbox: I could see single person gaming working decently on this, but playing multiplayer could run into some problems. That's a lot of distance for stuff to be traveling back and forth to handle multiplayer. The best case scenario will probably work just fine, but how often and how consistently do you get the best case?
@closhedbb: Actually, that wouldn't be the problem because all multiplayer process is done on the server. The problem is with the latency on the interface. Not only will it be laggy, but it's very random.
09/03/09
With this set-up I can buy any game I like, play it whenever I like (net connection be damned), and never have to deal with lag. Not to mention the added benefits of the processor speed when doing work and other useful things like using it as my media server.
This service will be subscription based and while I don't know the exact cost, $15-20 per month is very likely- and there may even be a start-up fee.
So in two years you will have paid more than the price of the computer. Some may argue that 2 years is enough time for a machine to become completely outdated, although I would then point out that I have had my quadcore q6600 processor and board for just over two years, and the only part I have upgraded in the past two years was the video card.
Short story - isn't it cheaper and a better investment to just buy/build a machine?
09/03/09
09/03/09
Oh hai there! I like you're imaginary video card you have! Especially with it's imaginary price!
09/09/09
09/03/09
09/03/09
Also means if someone goes AFK they can do a save state n load someone up until they come back.
09/03/09
As a video editor, I'd like to personally thank each and every one of you obsessive computer gamers, because I know that we home editors couldn't have driven the demand for awesome hardware at cheap prices by ourselves. We've had some good times, my friends.
I hope you'll reconsider leaving us.
We....we love you.
09/03/09
09/03/09
09/03/09
But you'd have to be out of your friggin' mind to waste the time uploading all of your raw files to the cloud for the sole purpose of getting some extra performance. For just an average size project I'd work on, I could get into the tens or hundreds of gigabytes of raw video easy. And I don't even work on full-length feature films or such. With the current average broadband speed (and especially with folks hitting data caps), that's just not a practical solution.
Motion graphics, maybe, though. I mean, you can create some pretty screaming graphics inside After Effects alone, so you'd only need to use up bandwidth for downloading the final file. And that would also be where you'd need more power. Honestly, I think that could happen very easily.
In the meantime, I have had the idea myself to get a major power rig set up at home, then get a cheap laptop to remote login to the desktop, give myself the combo of power and portability. Power in the desktop I wouldn't afford in a laptop of comparable price. In concept, it's the same basic idea, except I have direct access to the server in this case, so I can import my videos without eating up huge amounts of bandwidth/hitting data limits.
03/25/09
03/26/09
Stop thinking of broadband like a luxury, because for many of us, it's not. We pay for the broadband first and worry about non-essentials like upgrading later.
03/26/09
Save your money; get an xbox.
03/26/09
03/25/09
03/25/09
03/25/09
03/25/09
03/24/09
Now they want to take the rendering and move it from the client to the server. Okay, that's not a bad idea, it allows for very thin clients. This is the general premise behind web-based applications such as Salesforce.com etc. However, there are two problems that need to be addressed for this to work.
1. Rendering: Currently if 20 people are playing a game that means there are 20 videos being rendered. In order for this to work a "server cloud" would have to have the power of 20 high end video cards along with the CPU and RAM to manage all the variables. Now multiply that by the number of people playing at any one time. Now clean the brain matter off your screen from your head exploding.
2. Bandwidth: Now you are not only sending a data stream back and forth, but fully rendered HD video. The amount of bandwidth used for one 20 player game that lasts 30 minutes would be tremendous on both the server and client side. And with several major ISPs (Time Warner anyone) setting bandwidth caps you could blow through that in one game.
This is an interesting idea and will make an excellent proof-of-concept, but I simply can't imagine it is ready for prime time or will be anytime soon. Not only do I think the tech is not there, but only people who buy more than say a dozen games a year will be willing to pay for it. I only play 3-4 games a year, so it would have to be less than $10/month for me to even consider it. Oh, and they would have to carry the games I want to play.
03/24/09
The one problem they will have the hardest time is latency over internet. I don't think they'll ever get that same buttery-smooth movement you get playing locally on your PC.
Of course, they can always solve that problem with auto-targeting. :)
03/24/09
03/24/09
03/24/09
03/24/09
03/24/09
03/24/09
03/24/09