3 ms·

Is my understanding of this correct - that they're maintaining state and performing rendering on the server for every connection to the service, and then sendin

by T-R 16y ago

Is my understanding of this correct - that they're maintaining state and performing rendering on the server for every connection to the service, and then sending each frame over the network? I am so very confused as to how this is scaling. Isn't the rule of thumb for scalability and performance to move client state and UI processing onto the client? Are they going to run an XBox VM for every simultaneously connected customer? How does it perform for games that require low controller lag, like FPS - or Megaman for that matter.

wmf 16y ago
Yes, it's basically VNC applied to games. I would guess that each simultaneous user has a dedicated PC on the server side.
- CrazedGeek 16y ago
  Supposedly, they can run four or so off of the same PC for lower-end games.
- T-R 16y ago
  That sounds very very expensive.
- Charuru 16y ago
  It's virtualized, and considering not everyone plays games at the same time, you would prob get a lot more than 4 players per "pc"
  - T-R 16y ago
    True, but the hardware still needs to scale linearly with the number of concurrent connections, and it leaves them pretty susceptible to high traffic related problems, like at peak times when games are first released. What if someone decides to launch a DDoS? Virtualization also limits the type of games they can run - you can't run a dozen PS3 games without a dozen PS3s. On top of that, they shoulder the cost of upgrading the hardware, along with the risk - another Dreamcast (high initial sales followed by a severe dropoff) would be disastrous. I'm not sure how they can pass those costs on to their customers at a price point that's attractive to anyone who doesn't play lots of games per month (also making it possibly a net loss), or that's competitive with the more scalable, more performant, and lower risk model of running the games on the client, whether it's a console or a PC.
    - Charuru 16y ago
      AFAIcantell they only do PC games (or ports), so they don't have that problem. They probably won't deal in specialty hardware, that would be a nightmare. Just standard, out of the box hardware that can contribute to their overall processing power even 5-10 years later.
      - T-R 16y ago
        That would definitely mitigate some of the risk, but I'd imagine they'd have to steer clear of new games that push hardware too much - even if every system running the same game runs it from shared memory, it's still optimistically one processor per connection. They're also likely to run into the same problems that Netflix is having with ISPs, but even harder, without caching as an option. It's like they tried to conjure up the least scalable application imaginable... well, props to them if they pull it off.
reedlaw 16y ago
Seems like they will need high-end video cards for new games too. Doesn't seem like it could scale much that way.
cma 16y ago
>I am so very confused as to how this is scaling. Isn't the rule of thumb for scalability and performance to move client state and UI processing onto the client? Then, for say, casual gamers, you have excess client capacity (capital) sitting idle more than 95% of the time.
- T-R 16y ago
  That's true, and that investment's on the customers, so idle clients aren't really a problem, unless you sell the hardware too far below cost, and they don't buy enough media. If you're Steam, this doesn't even cross your mind. When the required hardware's expensive, centralizing is a gamble - you want to run close to 100% capacity, but you don't ever want to go above it.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]

by T-R 16y ago

wmf 16y ago

Yes, it's basically VNC applied to games. I would guess that each simultaneous user has a dedicated PC on the server side.

CrazedGeek 16y ago
Supposedly, they can run four or so off of the same PC for lower-end games.
T-R 16y ago
That sounds very very expensive.
Charuru 16y ago
It's virtualized, and considering not everyone plays games at the same time, you would prob get a lot more than 4 players per "pc"
- T-R 16y ago
  True, but the hardware still needs to scale linearly with the number of concurrent connections, and it leaves them pretty susceptible to high traffic related problems, like at peak times when games are first released. What if someone decides to launch a DDoS? Virtualization also limits the type of games they can run - you can't run a dozen PS3 games without a dozen PS3s. On top of that, they shoulder the cost of upgrading the hardware, along with the risk - another Dreamcast (high initial sales followed by a severe dropoff) would be disastrous. I'm not sure how they can pass those costs on to their customers at a price point that's attractive to anyone who doesn't play lots of games per month (also making it possibly a net loss), or that's competitive with the more scalable, more performant, and lower risk model of running the games on the client, whether it's a console or a PC.
  - Charuru 16y ago
    AFAIcantell they only do PC games (or ports), so they don't have that problem. They probably won't deal in specialty hardware, that would be a nightmare. Just standard, out of the box hardware that can contribute to their overall processing power even 5-10 years later.
    - T-R 16y ago
      That would definitely mitigate some of the risk, but I'd imagine they'd have to steer clear of new games that push hardware too much - even if every system running the same game runs it from shared memory, it's still optimistically one processor per connection. They're also likely to run into the same problems that Netflix is having with ISPs, but even harder, without caching as an option. It's like they tried to conjure up the least scalable application imaginable... well, props to them if they pull it off.

reedlaw 16y ago

Seems like they will need high-end video cards for new games too. Doesn't seem like it could scale much that way.

cma 16y ago

>I am so very confused as to how this is scaling. Isn't the rule of thumb for scalability and performance to move client state and UI processing onto the client? Then, for say, casual gamers, you have excess client capacity (capital) sitting idle more than 95% of the time.

T-R 16y ago
That's true, and that investment's on the customers, so idle clients aren't really a problem, unless you sell the hardware too far below cost, and they don't buy enough media. If you're Steam, this doesn't even cross your mind. When the required hardware's expensive, centralizing is a gamble - you want to run close to 100% capacity, but you don't ever want to go above it.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]