More on Grid Computing and Gaming

securitas writes "Sony, IBM and Butterfly.net will announce and demonstrate a new grid computing network for PS2 online gaming at the Game Developers Conference next week. The network is based on Linux and the Open Grid Services Architecture (OGSA) and is designed to support millions of players. This is believed to be the first major consumer application of grid technology. Read the details at the NY Times, CNET and the Washington Post."

About time...

[Da Fokka]

X-Box online is a Major selling point for the X-Box right now. I'm surprised Sony didn't come up with anything similar earlier.

What's so special about the grid?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've read a few Grid papers, and still do not understand what is so original about the "grid" idea. Isn't it essentially the idea of ARPANET, except with better funding? :)

Difference between parallel computing and Grid

[pbhj]

It's not! As far as I can discern the only difference is in the length (and quantity) of the connections. Parallel computing normal involves a local cluster of computers (LAN, eg a Beowulf type project) whilst the Grid works on the SETI type system of enlisting processing power across the internet (WAN) - ie many more processors separated by greater differences. Note these are comparative terms so you decide what's a Grid and what's an MPP

Whatis says: Grid computing requires the use of software that can divide and farm out pieces of a program to as many as several thousand computers. Grid computing can be thought of as distributed and large-scale cluster computing and as a form of network-distributed parallel processing. It can be confined to the network of computer workstations within a corporation or it can be a public collaboration (in which case it is also sometimes known as a form of peer-to-peer computing).

pbhj

Re:Now We Need Games!

[Dan Ost]

No, you're not getting too old. You're just
looking for something in a game that isn't a
high priority for the gaming industry.

Games today are designed to be impressive and
flashy enough to get you to buy them, playable
enough that while you're playing it the first
time through you tell all your friends, but not
replayable so that you're done with it by the
time the next title comes out.

I don't mind story lines in a game, but if finding
out the story line is the only reason to play the
game, then it's not worth the effort because
then the game play feels like work (as opposed
to play) and there's no replay value.

Here's what Sony's doing...

[silvaran]

I'm just taking a guess here. They brought the world EverCra^H^H^HQuest. It's hugely popular. Then they brought it to the Playstation 2. Sort of a proof of concept. Can we get regular home consumers to play EverQuest in their living room?. Now we have the head of the Playstation projects complaining that they're not going to have the technology to do what they want to do in the next generation of Playstation.

So they have to resort to grid computing. I'm not talking about parallel computing, where all these computers work together to accomplish tasks in a linear fashion cut up over different computers.

They've proved that online works with consoles (as have others, but anyways...). More and more people are getting broadband. Hard drives are a must to hold data, as a memory card is for game saves, not for world contents.

This leads me to my next idea. Everybody gets a PS3, and it supports grid computing. You put the game in, and you plug YOUR WORLD into the online grid. People can visit your world. Take a game like The Sims (god forbid -- I haven't played EverQuest so I'll use The Sims). Everyone has a different house, and the connections are transparent. There is no central repository where everybody meets. Instead of people meeting at one place, they all go their separate ways and meet up with disparate lands housed mostly on a single person's PS2. You plug into the grid, your world, your contributions, your skills, your "power" (as in electricity, as an analogy) is fed to the entire grid, and everyone can benefit from it.

No more arranging rendezvous points. You want to play with a friend, you go to his console online. Strangers walk by, and they aren't fed data from the server -- they're fed data from you. The server manages the protocols and game updates, but everyone who has the game contributes a piece of the puzzle. If one of your friends unplugs his machine from the grid, you lose a core piece of your game. No more lands stored on disc. They're all on the hard drive, and are created and grown by you to give to other people in an online experience.

Or I could be full of shit. I know I'm going to regret not posting AC...

Is EVERYONE Clueless?

[Master_Flash]

Think about the types of systems that a game has.

1) World, Avatar, and Prop Rendering - The grid is not helpful at ALL here. 0 of 10

2) Network communications - The grid could possiblely help with more secure P2P communications - Low score here. 1 of 10

3) AI - The one possilbe place where it could be helpful, but ONLY in limited cases. I would propose two types of AI.
A) Realtime - These are things that you are interacting with, due to possilbe lag and job scheduling delays, I dont see much opportunity here. - 1 of 10
B) Near Realtime - This would be a good fit. The character that no one is interacting with could do smart things, BUT who cares! You are not interacting with them! 3 of 10

4) P2P resource distribution - Another possible target, but no one does this now, and the possability of getting copyrighted materials on your machine will discourage most folks I think.
4 of 10

5) General Instruction Processing - WAY too Slow!

Total score as I see it for the usefulness of grid computing in games 10 of 50. DO NOT DEPLOY at this time!