4 ms·

That does sound pretty impressive - given the apparent importance of low lag in multiplayer FPS to the hardcore gaming community (of which I'm not part, so this

by zcrar70 18y ago

That does sound pretty impressive - given the apparent importance of low lag in multiplayer FPS to the hardcore gaming community (of which I'm not part, so this is just hearsay), I'm not sure how easy it would be to convince hardcore gamers to move to the platform though. But then maybe they're not the target audience?

greendestiny 18y ago
No game waits for the server to process movement commands before showing the player moving locally because the lag is unacceptable and that's just raw movement and game state data. With extra time for the compressed 'image' data you'd have a completely unacceptable experience. I think casual gamers would hate the experience just as much. The only game I can think of that would want good graphics but crap response would be a golf game.
- 10ren 18y ago
  Great point about extrapolating game state. They are way overselling it. It's simply not possible to do as well as a game running locally, as they claim (maybe in 7 more years...). But there's a continuum of playability, between ideal and unplayable. If there are other benefits (flexible, convenient, cheap), and there is an audience who is very happy with this tradeoff, then this possibly, maybe could be a disruptive innovation. It's not going to take off with hardcore twitch FPS, so they seem to be targeting the wrong market (probably just for a more exciting demo). It's niche audience might be more like for the Wii: they don't care it's less powerful and not HD, but they like it because it's more fun (and cheaper). A similar story for casual games (whose success surprised some people). I'm not saying it will find a niche; just that it's possible. And then over time, latency improves, and they're ready for it. The argument I've heard about coping with first day demand spikes is a bit silly. Of course it won't handle that - but it doesn't mean it's useless. What about all the other days? Demand spikes are a problem for physical distribution channels too.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
- ConradHex 18y ago
  A 640x480x16 bit frame buffer is 600k. At 30fps, that's 17,6 megabytes per second of data. And 640x480 is a ridiculously low resolution these days, and 30 fps isn't so hot, either. There would have to be some amazing compression for this to make sense, or a VERY fat pipe.

by zcrar70 18y ago

greendestiny 18y ago

No game waits for the server to process movement commands before showing the player moving locally because the lag is unacceptable and that's just raw movement and game state data. With extra time for the compressed 'image' data you'd have a completely unacceptable experience. I think casual gamers would hate the experience just as much. The only game I can think of that would want good graphics but crap response would be a golf game.

10ren 18y ago
Great point about extrapolating game state. They are way overselling it. It's simply not possible to do as well as a game running locally, as they claim (maybe in 7 more years...). But there's a continuum of playability, between ideal and unplayable. If there are other benefits (flexible, convenient, cheap), and there is an audience who is very happy with this tradeoff, then this possibly, maybe could be a disruptive innovation. It's not going to take off with hardcore twitch FPS, so they seem to be targeting the wrong market (probably just for a more exciting demo). It's niche audience might be more like for the Wii: they don't care it's less powerful and not HD, but they like it because it's more fun (and cheaper). A similar story for casual games (whose success surprised some people). I'm not saying it will find a niche; just that it's possible. And then over time, latency improves, and they're ready for it. The argument I've heard about coping with first day demand spikes is a bit silly. Of course it won't handle that - but it doesn't mean it's useless. What about all the other days? Demand spikes are a problem for physical distribution channels too.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

ConradHex 18y ago
A 640x480x16 bit frame buffer is 600k. At 30fps, that's 17,6 megabytes per second of data. And 640x480 is a ridiculously low resolution these days, and 30 fps isn't so hot, either. There would have to be some amazing compression for this to make sense, or a VERY fat pipe.