Why Project Flare Might Just End the Console War 166
An anonymous reader writes "Project Flare, the new server side gaming technology from Square Enix, turned heads when it was announced last week. The first tech demos do little more than show the vast number of calculations it can handle with hundreds of boxes tumbling down in Deus Ex, but the potential is there to do much more than just picture-in-picture feeds in MMOs. As a new article points out, what's most interesting is the potential to use the technology for games that use more than one system — OnLive may have used this tech before, but only to play games you can buy on discs in the shops anyway, but the future is in games that need the equivalent of dozens of PS4s or Xbox Ones to power them. Ubisoft has already partnered with Square on the project."
IMO, it is not going to work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd imagine there'd be some scalability advantages for specific use-cases (re-use of assets, models, animations and the game world across multiple instances of the game), so MMOs could generally benefit from this approach because many users share the same content at the same time, while it would be close to useless for single-player games where basically every player has different content on-screen and in-game than every other player.
Re:IMO, it is not going to work (Score:5, Interesting)
Works great till you realize the USA is currently worse than a third-world country in terms of broadband penetration and up/down speeds...
Re:IMO, it is not going to work (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! Thats getting this super awesome other world experience the GP is wishing for.
Re:IMO, it is not going to work (Score:5, Insightful)
Works great till you realize the USA is currently worse than a third-world country in terms of broadband penetration and up/down speeds...
Sorry, have you been to any third world countries? In many you're lucky if you can get dial-up speeds, yet alone a constant connection.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Yes, America.. The selfentitlment that they should be getting a T5 connection to every coffee shop for free internet access...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you poor americans with your unlimited bandwidth, and horrible pings for cable @ 50ms..
Move to another continent and discover what its like to be laughed at for local servers, leaving you with a base ping of 200+, and paying $100 a month For ADSL2 with a 200gig limit.. Square Enix would have to be investing in Data Centers all over the place, and somehow find about 100Trillion to raise the worlds data access to above an average of under 20k.
Re: (Score:3)
I've heard your line repeated before around here, and it's time it was finally put to rest, since it grossly overstates the problem and muddles any attempts at rational discourse. Going by your own metrics for judging success, how many actual third-world countries do you see above the US in these lists?
Table of broadband penetration rates by country [wikipedia.org] (sort the table by %)
Mean upload speed rankings by country [netindex.com]
Mean download speed rankings by country [netindex.com]
By my count, there are none that are ahead across those ranking
Size is an irrelevant argument for many of us. (Score:3)
It would be one thing if t
Re: IMO, it is not going to work (Score:3)
South Africa isn't a third world country.
Re:IMO, it is not going to work (Score:5, Interesting)
Why to spend power in datacenters when people can use it at home? Other than vendor-lock, is non-sense. Another thing is how scalabe the thing is, etc.
One example is to provide functionality which cannot be provided by the console machines themselves. For example, games for the Xbox 180 are going to have the option to use Azure to run game servers. One of the major frustrations of console gaming today is that one of the game consoles has to play server.
From the summary, though, the idea is to provide games more powerful than what your console can actually run. With a large enough playerbase it might actually be feasible. It costs a lot of CPU to perform a lot of physics calculations, but if you only have to perform them once for a whole bunch of players' updates because they're all looking at the same thing, then you're going to save some cycles there.
Re: (Score:3)
Are reallly contemporary FPS games calculating physics separately on each machine? Given that physic calcs tend to be non exact and a bit of chaos theory you could end up in really different worlds very soon.
If we are just talking about moving 'server' from one of player consoles to the dedicated datacenter (like most 'normal' games do it), then it hardly looks to be exciting?
Re: (Score:3)
Are reallly contemporary FPS games calculating physics separately on each machine?
The answer is sort of and also sometimes. I can't actually speak to FPS specifically, but in GTAV the game clearly does independent physics calculations when it thinks you're far away from other players. You can tell because things get squirrely when you catch up to a lagged player, or when a lagged player catches up to you. The game doesn't bother to synchronize events which it decides can't affect other players.
Re: (Score:3)
The physics stuff is done on the server. The non interactive animations are done clientside. However, the clients have code to anticipate the server's next state, 'correcting' itself when the prediction fails to match. This results in smoother animation and reduced apparent lag.
Re:IMO, it is not going to work (Score:5, Informative)
Write a mod for ut2k4 and you'll soon start seeing how it works. The local game runs a simulation, but subject to correction by the server. Extrapolating events until the packets catch up. Really latency-sensitive things like sniping are handled locally. This can lead to some very strange things happening at times:
1. Run past a window.
2. Clear the window.
3. Your movement is passed to the server, and then to another player.
4. Other player snipes you.
5. Snipe victory is reported back to the server, then to you.
6. Half a second after passing the window, you drop dead. Headshot. Even though from your perspective, you were in a place you should have been out of sight. Serves you right for running past a sniper-visible window.
Generally the game is good enough that almost all of this is transparent though. Only the exceptionally observent notice it. Still rather strange to code for, as everything you write is actually being executed three times in parallel (On the server, on the client, and on everyone else's client), and you need to make sure that all three executions eventually give the same result, even if not at quite the same moment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sniper rifle should be the *least* latency-sensitive weapon. In real life, no sniper can hit a running target at any reasonable distance (unless they are running directly towards, or away). More so if the target is passing by a window and is only visible for a fraction of a second, which makes any sort of leading practically impossible.
Re:IMO, it is not going to work (Score:4, Funny)
Unless they have an aimbot
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, but you also get a lot of good hits out of knowing where doorways and passages behind walls are: I've sniped a number of people behind walls because I knew, at spawn, there would be a high chance of *somebody* being behind it - given the narrow passageway and the odd curiosity of players going "should I step out there...," the chances for a hit on that wall are insanely high. If you train on a frequented path in an FPS, other than Battlefield which is HUGE, and shoot one round every 5 seconds after sp
Re: (Score:2)
Woah... dude... what if, like, that's why we have relativity. The computers running the universe are on Comcast.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I've got some fucking Jaffa Cakes in my coat pocket.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for clarification. But this only proves that whatever they are planning doesn't help with this - if they are already going to transfer something from the server, then they can transfer real stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
For network gaming, physics engines get rewritten with deterministic results. This can include very base-level things like re-writing platform code, as the platforms handle floating point calculations differently.
It takes a lot to get your physics simulation to be deterministic, but every game out there with multiplayer has to do it. Really, it's the player inputs that cause problems.
Re: (Score:2)
That's even a fail point. Physics are regularly parallel computation, much better fit to a GPU than a brute force computer farm.
So you'd put some GPUs in your farm. This is rocket surgery?
Re: (Score:2)
For example, games for the Xbox 180 are going to have the option to use Azure to run game servers.
Although apparently, this is not without its down side:
Xbox One's Cloud Servers May Have to Reboot and Update Mid-Session, Says Microsoft [xbox360achievements.org]
While there may be some advantage for XBox-exclusive games, I can't see this taking off in general. It adds yet another layer of complexity, and can't be used in multi-platform games (and given the current market, many games require a multiple
platform release to be profitable)
Re: (Score:3)
It's basically a way to keep the price of consoles at a point where people will still buy them, while being able to offer the level of processing power that would be too expensive. I'm sure the monthly subscriptions will cover cost of datacenters and power consumption.
I don't know if it's vendor lock-in, but atleast this is a way to offer paying customers a better experience than pirates instead of the other way around with current DRM.
Re:IMO, it is not going to work (Score:4, Insightful)
It's basically a way to keep the price of consoles at a point where people will still buy them, while being able to offer the level of processing power that would be too expensive.
Current consoles are well beyond the point of diminishing returns with regards to graphics power while cost of replicating existing capabilities keep getting cheaper year after year.
I don't know if it's vendor lock-in, but atleast this is a way to offer paying customers a better experience than pirates instead of the other way around with current DRM.
On what planet does high latency translate into a better experience?
Turn-based (Score:3)
On what planet does high latency translate into a better experience?
On fictional planets in essentially turn-based games, like what Square Enix has been putting out since Dragon Quest/Warrior and Final Fantasy in the NES days. The latency doesn't have to be any better than, for example, the ATB recharge time in FFVII.
Re: (Score:2)
so then it's the cost of the console+per publisher subscriptions+console vendor subscription+internet subscription...
Yuck..
Re:IMO, it is not going to work (Score:4, Insightful)
It's basically a way to keep the price of consoles at a point where people will still lease them, while being able to offer the level of processing power that would be too expensive.
Fixed that for you. This has nothing to do with buying anything, it's a temporary lease and the servers will be shut off sooner than later.
Re: (Score:2)
Because consoles aren't something most people use 24/7. I probably use my 360 about 2-3 hours per week. It's not at all challenging to see the opportunity for increased efficiency. Why should everyone have a full powered machine that only is used 2-3% of the time. 2-3% usage is the perfect situation for usage based rentals.
Re: (Score:2)
Because consoles aren't something most people use 24/7. I probably use my 360 about 2-3 hours per week. It's not at all challenging to see the opportunity for increased efficiency. Why should everyone have a full powered machine that only is used 2-3% of the time. 2-3% usage is the perfect situation for usage based rentals.
Good luck improving on the power button.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck improving on the power button.
With my old PC, 'powered off' still took about 7W from the wall. Unplugging was certainly an improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
well then the question is why didn't you subscribe to onlive?
it's not like this is a new idea in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. While twitchy, immediate reaction needs to happen at a low latency, any broader environmental modelling, lighting and background rendering can absorb greater latency without harming the game-play. So the regional server farm can push off the heavier load of the latency-tolerant processing to more distant servers that aren't being utilised fully. You might see three layers to the game, the press-a-control-something-happens layer on the console, the things-reacting-immediately layer at the re
Some advantages (Score:2)
Why to spend power in datacenters when people can use it at home? Other than vendor-lock, is non-sense. Another thing is how scalabe the thing is, etc.
The power cost is passed down to the consumer, so it's not really an issue. If the customer/market will bear the monthly costs, then there are other advantages.
1) The game doesn't have to deal with OS differences. The engine can be built for 1 OS in 1 language, and connect to simple video frame renders on the client system. No more "not available for Mac" or "Mac/OS, not Linux".
2) The game cannot be easily pirated or hacked, since the software resides on the server.
3) The game doesn't have to deal with slo
Re: (Score:3)
Why to spend power in datacenters when people can use it at home? Other than vendor-lock, is non-sense. Another thing is how scalabe the thing is, etc.
How about 100% cheat prevention? When all the computing is done centrally, how could you possibly cheat in the game anymore?
Plus, it totally eliminated the lag factor in FPS, as only the central server do the processing and rendering. Rubberbanding and blinking/shifting enemies will be eliminated.
The only lag now comes between your end to the server, which, while non-zero, is at least consistent from game to game.
With only 1 copy of the world, then the number of players will only be limited by the number
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>How about 100% cheat prevention? When all the computing is done centrally, how could you possibly cheat in the game anymore?
Most games have all, or nearly all, of the processing happening on the server as it is. Doesn't stop cheaters. Sure, they can't exactly just memory edit the amount of gold/points/health/whatever they have anymore, but there are an infinite number of other ways to cheat. Think about botters; that doesn't rely on client-side processing. Aimbots in FPS games do not need to rely on cli
Re: (Score:3)
>How about 100% cheat prevention? When all the computing is done centrally, how could you possibly cheat in the game anymore?
Most games have all, or nearly all, of the processing happening on the server as it is. Doesn't stop cheaters. Sure, they can't exactly just memory edit the amount of gold/points/health/whatever they have anymore, but there are an infinite number of other ways to cheat. Think about botters; that doesn't rely on client-side processing. Aimbots in FPS games do not need to rely on client-side processing (from the game, anyways) either; they will detect enemies and simulate mouse movement to auto-aim.
Think again. When all processing is done in the server and only the screen is sent to the client, wall hack becomes impossible. Aimbot? Your aimbot better be able to identify an opponent's head from the displayed graphics. Not the say that's as difficult as in doing so in real video footage, but it raised the bar so high, that anyone able to pull that off would be quite an expert in pattern and facial recognition, and not just a matter of finding the coordinate for the opponent's location in the data st
Re: (Score:2)
You could say the same thing about MANY consumer "cloud" services, and that app model seems to be doing fine...
Re: (Score:2)
Exceed your cap (Score:2)
Why spend $500 on PS4 at home when you can get a cheap client for under $100 and a $10/month subscription to such a cloud service, that would essentially be video-on-demand with input/output capability?
Monthly transfer overages. Satellite latency if you happen to live out of range of cable or fiber.
This would not work too well for multiplayer because of the latency between user-server-user, but would be great for single player.
Actually, so long as all the players' cloud sessions are running on servers in the same rack as the multiplayer game server, multiplayer would be just as good as single player.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. The AV quality would be inferior in framerate and image quality, as would the gameplay, even in single player. The lag would be atrocious.
2. There's the xbl/psn subscription, then there's the game publisher subscription that pays for their banks of servers, then there's the $60 game price on top of that.
It's not really that great a deal for the consumer, but it does give the publishers total control over your access to the game you purchased.
Re:IMO, it is not going to work (Score:5, Insightful)
Its very simple - power savings, and cheaper thin consoles for end users.
What power savings? Power is being consumed somewhere else where as a customer YOU are paying for that too. Lets not forget about additional power requirements required to push insane number of real-time bits for trivial reasons over the Internet.
This would not work too well for multiplayer because of the latency between user-server-user, but would be great for single player.
Since everyone would experience input latency and there is no network latency for the multi-player link latency would be about the same persistent problem whether it were single or multiplayer game. The only lag assuming lack of operator incompetence would be in the form of input delay with very limited opportunities to compensate with prediction algorithms. Nobody who plays on anything approaching a competitive basis would touch this thing.
Re: (Score:2)
With the rendering done server side, to hide some latency issues the servers could render and stream spherical/360 video - e.g. you tu
Re: (Score:2)
What power savings? Power is being consumed somewhere else where as a customer YOU are paying for that too. Lets not forget about additional power requirements required to push insane number of real-time bits for trivial reasons over the Internet.
By polling all processing power in the same place you can optimize a number of things compared to distributed clients:
- It's more efficient to cool a huge data centre than a number of small consoles which have other design constraints such as low price, low noise and small footprint;
- You can build the data centre where energy is cheaper;
- You can more easily upgrade the server hardware when newer, more efficient technology appears;
- As someone else noted, you'll have many clients requesting the same calcul
Re: (Score:3)
Why spend $500 on PS4 at home when you can get a cheap client for under $100 and a $10/month subscription to such a cloud service
Because if those were the two options when I bought my PS3, the first would have cost me $500 by now, and the second would have cost me $940 by now.
Console DRM? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No need to imagine. It's already happened plenty [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:3)
In theory, a properly designed system would have a local physics engine that takes over when the remote engine is unavailable, albeit at reduced fidelity.
Of course, that's not how it will end up working, especially with Ubisoft involved. The real goal here is more control disguised as improvements.
Re: (Score:3)
Not everything that requires the Internet is DRM.
And frankly, even if DRM was the primary intent, it's one of the less annoying DRMs since 1) online multiplayer, by definition, requires the Internet, and 2) economics:
Let's take the Xbox One. Microsoft claims to be adding 3 more Xbox One units for each one sold in the cloud, but really that's based on an average or maximum use situation. In reality they will have 300,000 cloud machines powering the number of users that might be gaming at any one time. Com
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine your game not starting because the 'physics' servers are down or you can't connect to them.....
And how is that different from how I cannot play multiplayer BF3 on PS3 when EA's or Sony's servers are down?
Some games are intended to be multiplayer only, you can't play them when the server is down anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Not much of a problem when you're dealing with an MMO-type game that requires you to be online anyway. Not more of a problem than the game-server being down, anyway.
The bigger problem will be getting game developers to take on the challenge (and risk, if it means that they can only sell their game to people who are paying extra for Xbox Live Platinum Cloud Physics Foundation Edition Home Ultimate) of creating a type of game that, like the MMO, is only possible in the context of this remote capability, rather than having the remote capability be an obvious cash grab/lockin attempt. Think of how much people liked the 'online' features of SimCity's recent reboot... It was
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Imagine your house is on fire. It would be hard to play games in that situation as well.
I see they hired the mafia to handle difficult sales.
Re: (Score:2)
Right... (Score:5, Insightful)
OnLive was such a bastion of success wasn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In the immortal words of Sgt. Hulka, "lighten up Francis" [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Another problem is that they're the first (AFAIK) to offer a streaming gaming platform. Hardly ever pioneering business are successful, in particular when it comes to consumer electron
Onlive - take two (Score:3)
This reminds me of a certain coffee stand I drive by each day on my way to work.
Every few months it closes down, sold to a new owner who improves it and re-opens only to close down a few months later.
In the last few years I can count on one hand times drive thru was something other than completely empty.
Sometimes people just can't take a hint.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Every few months it closes down, sold to a new owner who improves it and re-opens only to close down a few months later.
They are probably just bankruptcy jockeys, using "new owners" to purchase out the assets of the old company while shedding debt to gullible investors. The new store can then skim off the income and close again in a few months time, finding more gullible investors to put money into it.
Great, Square ... (Score:3, Insightful)
The company that last released a good game 16 years ago. I can barely contain my excitement.
No thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a reason I've cut cable tv from my life. Being remote controlled and the only game in town, it's become overpriced, ad-laden, and content thin. If that's where gaming is going I will have to cut that too. The prospect of overpaying to 'stream' a laggy, ad-filled game experience with overly-constrained lossy-compressed AV doesn't sound inviting either. I LIKE the idea of having power under the hood locally, so to speak, just like I want server binaries for games to run my own servers and mod tools to make my own mods/maps. This way the game stays alive as long as there are interested players and doesn't die the moment it stops making money for its creators. To top it off, the current 'cloud' model for a lot of software now charges the 'owner-controlled boxed software' prices of the 90s for what amounts to a rent-a-go arcade level of service. What a rip-off.
The more computing looks like ibm's wet dream of 'service', the less interesting and more oppressive it gets. No thanks.
Obvious: latency (Score:5, Insightful)
Even with modern broadband, latency is still an issue for these kinds of applications. In the article are some examples of currently used server side gaming enhancements, like "Forza 5 will even use cloud computing to monitor the way you drive, and alter virtual drivers’ AI (artificial intelligence) accordingly." That has no need for low latency. But if you want the environment to immediately react to players actions, there need to be low latency. And you can't remove the distance (and related network infrastructure) between the player and the data center.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For a full rendered-in-the-cloud game, there are tricks you can do to minimize the impact of input latency. They are basically the same tricks that you use in today's multiplayer games. For small camera movements the game can just immediately warp the image client-side. To improve quality of the warp, some basic geometry could be sent in line with the video. For games with a HUD, it can be rendered client-side (think "pushlatency" in Quake-based FPSes).
These of course only help to hide latency, not actually
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they c
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Full disclosure: I work for NVIDIA on cloud gaming.
I was as skeptical as you about the latency. In this interview [venturebeat.com]. Phil Eisler talks about 200ms of XBox + TV latency that people live with every day. (See page 2) If that's our target, then that's pretty doable, since with strategically located data centers you can get the network latency down to 20-30 ms.
In the work we're doing, we're actually focusing more on hitching in the game than latency, since the latency isn't as big a deal if you're say in the Bay A
Re: (Score:3)
20-30ms.... on a home broadband connection, anywhere in the world?
Light only travels 185miles per millisecond.
Re: (Score:2)
Light only travels about 300 km per millisecond.
which is about a nanosecond per foot
(while I prefer metric measurements,
this a kind of cool non-metric factoid!)
so if you see someone 10 metres away,
the light took 10 nanoseconds to reach your eyes
(and a 100 or more milliseconds for your brain to process!)
Re: (Score:2)
argh!
second to last line should read
"the light took 33 nanoseconds to reach your eyes"
Re: (Score:2)
and 29 milliseconds for the sound of them making a typo on slashdot to reach you.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to get single digit latency sometimes on my old ISDN line, with Quake. Most of the servers I went to were sub 20 ms. Unfortunately, every broadband supplier I've used since then has been a lot worse than this... currently the best I see is about 50 :P.
Microsoft just debunked this for FPS games (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people kept saying "It's not that bad right now, it'll work eventually!", but Microsoft just (accidentally) tested OnLive's idea for low-latency games by introducing some small input lag into Windows 8.1 [slashdot.org]. Guess what? FPS gamers noticed.
Other game types which don't need super low latency, I'm sure, will eventually get here if only because game companies are still annoyingly DRM-focused and this will make piracy impossible.
Seems pretty iffy. (Score:2)
Basically instead of streaming the game they're talking about offloading the peak cases.
The boxes example would of been fine as a precomputed animation. I'm guessing if the player interrupts the process real-time it becomes screwed up due to latency.
No matter what the use cases are going to be somewhat limited. Calling it a game changer at this point is just silly.
download caps and lag kill this idea (Score:2)
download caps and lag kill this idea.
Problems (Score:2)
There's a few problems with that idea:
1. monthly caps from ISPs
2. latency
3. bandwidth
Engineer: We need to optimize the physics engine. (Score:2)
Management: But you said it was working. ... at 3 FPS on a standard PC.
Engineer: It is
Management: Perfect, we can sell it by the hour until then.
Engineer: You're kidding right?
Management: No, seriously, BTW your new project starts tomorrow.
Engineer: but....
So in the future... (Score:2)
All games will disappear when the publisher pulls the plug on the server, not only the ones from EA.
The Example (Score:2)
The example video is, well, just pathetic.
Seriously, my PC could handle that now. It's hardly a "demanding" case. Especially with boxes, which are quite easily to simulate physically.
Hell, the nVidia and GPU demos that I've seen do the equivalent with thousands of boxes - maybe not as pretty but they are unoptimised demos.
Just because your console is crap doesn't mean that farming it out as a thin-client will work - somewhere there still has to be the horsepower to do the job, and thus we're still paying
Thin Clients again, this time for gaming... (Score:2)
Larry Ellison was famous for being a huge backer of thin client computing in the enterprise. Of course, it failed for a large number of reasons such as mobile computing, the need to be able to work on documents locally, user experience, etc. If the enterprise environment wasn't conducive to thin client computing (i.e. low latency, guaranteed bandwidth, etc.), why would anyone think that a thin client gaming environment that relies on the Internet would be a good idea?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but... Vendor Lock-In.
It's where every tech company is trying to go now the big profits from incremental improvements in old products have vanished.
Past users had a choice between thin clients and PCs which would run anything. Future users will only be able to buy computers locked down with Windows Boot and App Stores.
Bad name (Score:2)
nothing new... (Score:2)
Not gonna fly (Score:2)
First off: Square Enix? YAY! Now they can put up a countdown clock for how long until they (or someone breaking into their systems, or both) misappropriate your financial information to make unauthorized purchases on your account.
Second off: Ubisoft? The "We're stupid enough to think DRM actually works, so fuck you, all you customers are really criminals!" company?
Third off: The latencies involved simply preclude certain types of games (like FPS).
Fourth off: It's still going to be in the shit-tastic con
"Web" != "Internet" (Score:2)
The author of TFA clearly doesn't understand what 'the web' actually means. Four times the word 'web' is used, and in each instance, they should have used 'Internet'.
Today's web-technologies do not address the needs of cloud gaming.
PC + TV (Score:2)
Wouldn't that tie up your main PC? (Score:2)
I have a 25 ft HDMI cable, with my computer desk in the back of the living room.
I've gathered from previous discussions on Slashdot [slashdot.org] that a lot of people have the computer desk in a separate room and are unwilling to cut holes in walls [slashdot.org] or permanently move the computer desk into the TV room. Instead, they are content to limit themselves to those games available for major consoles.
You can hook up a cheap laptop and push video from your main PC to it.
In other words, something like the dumb terminal mode of the NVIDIA Shield and the low-end SteamOS devices. But wouldn't that tie up the main PC so that another member of the household can't use it? A console do
Re: (Score:2)
But wouldn't that tie up the main PC so that another member of the household can't use it?
I've rarely seen a game use more than 20% CPU on my PC. So there's plenty left for someone else to use it while streaming game video to a TV.
One user session at a time (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But wouldn't the user sitting at the computer see either game video or "This computer is in use and has been locked" while the game is running? I wasn't aware that popular home PC operating systems could run two user sessions at once.
There's nothing stopping you from running a service on the system that renders games to offscreen memory rather than the screen. Nvidia's new software, I believe, can then use H.264 support in the GPU to compress it to stream across the local LAN?
Re: (Score:2)
For the price of a game console, you could always just buy a 30" TV / Monitor. I would rather look at a 30" screen at desk length than a 50" screen from across the room. Put some money into a good executive-style office chair and who needs the living room?
Dearth of games in certain genres (Score:2)
Honestly if your that unwilling to do any of the suggested options then you obviously dont want to play and are just looking for excuses for ways that the proposed solutions dont meet your needs
I agree with you; I'm just trying to find the best way to explain it others. For example, one excuse I see often against buying a second PC instead of a console is that far fewer PC games support couch multiplayer than console games, as Aqualung812 pointed out [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Shhhhh! Weaker consoles are easier to emulate on PCs.
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix has datacenter charger but they still have a flat rate. The Xbox One has free datacenter hours. The reason is that most consoles sit idle 90% of the time. If I can buy 1 console and sell it for half the price of the console permanently to 10 people and they only use it 10% of the time then I can most likely make a profit.
Re: (Score:2)