Comments Page 2
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
Links: New Topic
Forums »
page: 1 · 2
tiger72 @ 24th Mar 12:04PM:
Re: Business plan neglects the broadband ISPs
said by S_engineer :said by tiger72 :said by TKJunkMail :
This is a really stupid business plan in that it transfers the heavy lifting(all that extra bandwidth consumed) to the broadband ISPs without any consideration of added costs on their part.
And any people playing games on this service will quickly hit the broadband caps that are becoming ever more prevalent.
You're
totally right. Because the consumer AND "Onlive"
aren't paying ISP's for their bandwidth.
totallyOh wait, they are.
Its irrelevant if they're paying ISPs or not because of the disproportionate amount of bandwidth to be used. This was the excuse for imposing caps. If ISPs decided to market additional bandwidth to an enterprise like this it would undercut their argument about a bandwidth crunch.
1. I guarantee Onlive isn't paying for a consumer "unlimited" service. They are probably doing what other broadband-centric models have followed (Steam, Netflix) by negotiating low per/GB pricing. To put it more simply, they are paying for their consumption on their end.
2. The consumer paying for unlimited service should be able to use their unlimited service as they see fit. It's not the consumer's fault that their ISP's network is oversold. Hell, even with data caps, consumers have the right to use up their data caps for whatever service they want. The proportion of the bandwidth is irrelevant. How is this any different than me using bittorrent 24/7, usenet 24/7, netflix 24/7, or downloading the entire Steam catalog? What I use that bandwidth for is irrelevant.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara
reply
Kearnstd @ 24th Mar 12:10PM:
Re: Doesn't really sound possible
its a bad model because people expect a game console to be useful if the net is up or not. if my net is down i cant play WoW, but i can sure know my Xbox and PS2/PS3 will still load up a game in single player mode and distract me while the net gets worked on.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
reply
Kearnstd @ 24th Mar 12:11PM:
Re: Pipe Dream
said by royhandy :
Phantom was the first thing I thought of, too.
someone should backtrace this company and see if it has any relations to phantom, sounds like a very similar business model.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
reply
tiger72 @ 24th Mar 12:11PM:
Re: Doesn't really sound possible
said by Kearnstd :
its a bad model because people expect a game console to be useful if the net is up or not. if my net is down i cant play WoW, but i can sure know my Xbox and PS2/PS3 will still load up a game in single player mode and distract me while the net gets worked on.
This I can totally agree with.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara
reply
S_engineer @ 24th Mar 12:33PM:
Re: Business plan neglects the broadband ISPs
Oversold, yes. Your uses are your uses. The problem I see is that what you decide to use your service for effects the degree others can use their service for when they're paying the same amount. I never "abused the network" (as ISPs put it) with excessive downloading via torrents, and yet a cap was imposed on me as if I did. And very soon I predict the shoe will drop with overage fees for those exceeding the cap limit.
Now services such as this give the ISPs the excuse to lower caps even further under the guise of a bandwidth crunch, expediting the the initiation of overage costs. This will hurt the mass consumer.
[/My Ms. Cleo moment]
--
"When I was in junior high school, the teachers voted me the student most likely to end up in the electric chair."---Sylvestor Stallone
reply
whiteyonenh @ 24th Mar 12:34PM:
Not for current gamers...
I don't see people buying into this except for casual gamers. Now if they could integrate this somehow into cable/satellite settops, with maybe bluetooth controllers, now that would work. But for the majority of mainstream gamers, I don't see them switching over to this from their PC's and/or consoles anytime soon.
reply
CrazyFingers @ 24th Mar 12:36PM:
Bad Math?
Let's see if I can make a complete idiot out of myself here:
I currently play online games at 1920x1200, 32bits/pixel, 60FPS.
OK
If this service wants to give me the same experience with the remote servers doing all of the rendering, then logically their service would be sending me the finished frames to display on my screen, right?
So a single frame at 1920x1200 is about 2.3 million individual pixels, and assuming 32bit color, that's about 73.7 million bits per frame. Take that to 60 frames per second, and you're looking at 4.4 billion bits per second.
Unless I'm completely screwing something up, that means a constant data stream of over 4 gigabits per second for their service to give a comparable experience to my home-rendered games.
Surely they've got some kind of wicked compression schemes, so that figure is high, but still...
Ahh, here we go:
If you're hooked on your quad-core, dual-GPU gaming rig running on a 30-inch, 2560x1600 display, then OnLive is not likely to be your cup of tea.
Obviously...
--
Burrow owl...burrow owl...
reply
morbo @ 24th Mar 12:37PM:
Re: Doesn't really sound possible
said by Kearnstd :
its a bad model because people expect a game console to be useful if the net is up or not. if my net is down i cant play WoW, but i can sure know my Xbox and PS2/PS3 will still load up a game in single player mode and distract me while the net gets worked on.
i only like to play with actual other people, so i could care less about single player games.
reply
anon @ 24th Mar 12:39PM:
Way Bigger Than Just Games
If verified, this compression technology will revolutionize not just video game distribution and play, but also virtual worlds, mirror worlds (Google Earth), HD WebTV and so forth. Wow.
»memebox.com/futureblogger/show/1730
reply
amungus @ 24th Mar 12:40PM:
In real time?
Don't think so. Even with less than 20ms connection, this would be barely useful for any action. Even an old Atari game, or Mario, or what have you would be impossible to play. Enough people curse their games for the lag between controller and screen - add the uncertainty of the internet, and this would be laughably unplayable.
I understand downloading a game, playing it, and even playing online, but to have the entire game be rendered by a remote system would be a waste.
A little further reading here (»www.itworld.com/personal-tech/64···chnology) states that you'd need 2Mbps for SD and 4Mbps for HD...
...Oh, and the part they don't mention is that you'll also need 0ms pings to their servers :D
reply
amungus @ 24th Mar 12:44PM:
Re: Bad Math?
You're probably not far off... GPUs generally decompress "on the fly" so that you get those glorious full-frames of color drenched goodness at high resolution. Input is usually compressed textures... Perhaps they'll actually have a GPU in the box, similar to an nVidia ION that's cheap enough to mass produce and give away, but powerful enough to render playable framerates at something above 800x600 ;)
reply
SRFireside @ 24th Mar 12:55PM:
Amazing!!
Truly ground-breaking!! I am surprised nobody came up with this before. Where do I send my check in to invest in this totally new concept?
reply
DrModem @ 24th Mar 01:07PM:
Re: Way Bigger Than Just Games
Why do you want video compression on a game?
That defeats the whole purpose of making stuff look better.
reply
TKJunkMail @ 24th Mar 01:22PM:
Re: Business plan neglects the broadband ISPs
said by tiger72 :
1. I guarantee Onlive isn't paying for a consumer "unlimited" service. They are probably doing what other broadband-centric models have followed (Steam, Netflix) by negotiating low per/GB pricing. To put it more simply, they are paying for their consumption on their end.
2. The consumer paying for unlimited service should be able to use their unlimited service as they see fit. It's not the consumer's fault that their ISP's network is oversold. Hell, even with data caps, consumers have the right to use up their data caps for whatever service they want. The proportion of the bandwidth is irrelevant. How is this any different than me using bittorrent 24/7, usenet 24/7, netflix 24/7, or downloading the entire Steam catalog? What I use that bandwidth for is irrelevant.
But Onlive's business plan isn't reflecting the reality of broadband use and the caps. You can talk all day about how ISPs shouldn't have caps(and that is refusing to accept reality too), but they do, and Onlive is doomed if they don't take that in to account. Maybe they are waiting for the idiots in the government to change the rules for them.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
reply
DivineDark @ 24th Mar 01:29PM:
Two Words
Sega Channel
reply
tubbynet @ 24th Mar 01:33PM:
Re: Business plan neglects the broadband ISPs
said by TKJunkMail :
But Onlive's business plan isn't reflecting the reality of broadband use and the caps. You can talk all day about how ISPs shouldn't have caps(and that is refusing to accept reality too), but they do, and Onlive is doomed if they don't take that in to account. Maybe they are waiting for the idiots in the government to change the rules for them.
of course, this is purely speculattion based on what we think bandwidth usage will be. who knows if they have some way of transferring information hither and yon without intensive bandwidth usage. additionally, one must challenge the norms put forth for any change to occur. the internet is changing and if the isps don't see that, then it will be the job of the customers to *make* them see this. sure, it will be rough for a little bit, but it is the only way in the long run.
q.
reply
Ahrenl @ 24th Mar 01:41PM:
Re: Doesn't really sound possible
Agreed. Playing against the computer is fun for only the five minutes it takes to intuite the algorithm that sets its strategy.
reply
Skippy25 @ 24th Mar 01:50PM:
Re: Business plan neglects the broadband ISPs
First off you are a shill so your opinion about what is good for consumers holds little water. As pointed out numerous times, EVERYONE is paying for bandwidth at both ends and if this is not working out for your "friends" then they need adjust their business models to that which are consumer friendly (because of the monopolistic nature of the business) not stock jockey friendly.
Second, if a bulk of the processing is done at the server end then only screen refreshes are used much like a virtual terminal then the bandwidth used would be minimal.
Lastly, the rules do need to change. The ISP's need to become the dumbpipes they are and stop refusing to acknowledge this.
reply
Skippy25 @ 24th Mar 01:54PM:
Re: Perhaps..
And thus you begin segmenting the internet just how it should not be.
If it cannot work in an open system, then it should not be used on the internet.
reply
blueeyesm @ 24th Mar 02:06PM:
Re: Perhaps..
So, nothing should ever evolve, just for the sake of keeping something open?
You have zero faith in engineers. :)
reply
decifal @ 24th Mar 02:15PM:
ha
With the motivation and caps the local duo's are starting to use.. Things like this and video streaming services are just a dream in the future... You will be buying or streaming everything from your net provider if they have their ways.. And it looks to be this way... Donno about us dialup folks though... Lol, guess we just continue reading our txt only sites and talk of technology developements we"ll never see...
reply
HeavyC @ 24th Mar 02:54PM:
Kotaku has some decent videos up of the service today.
»kotaku.com/5181625/see-onlive-in-action
There are several games they already have up and running right now as a demo at GDC 09 this year. They explain how the resolution displayed will scale to your currently available bandwidth. They were saying 4 to 5 Mbps would be enough to render a 720p game at 60fps. 1.2 Mbps would be needed to do a Wii quality SD image at 60fps.
The games can be streamed down to a Windows PC or a Mac. They also have a thin client box for TV use. Who knows how this will ultimately work out, but I don't think you can outright dismiss this as the next Phantom since there seem to be real demos of the tech taking place.
reply
anon @ 24th Mar 04:05PM:
Re: Business plan neglects the broadband ISPs
I agree that it's a silly idea.
The costs of communications capacity are much greater than the costs of adding computational ability at the end point and it is likely that things will stay this way for the foreseeable future. Centralizing computational ability in exchange for shifting massive additional burden onto the communications pipe makes no economic sense.
I also have a intellectual tendency that loathes the idea of everything in the cloud. It's a rehash of an outdated client/server for everything model. Back in the day most computational ability was controlled by a small cadre of high priests running the data center. Why would anyone want to go back to those days? Because they think it is going to save them a few hundred dollars every couple of years upgrading their hardware at home? You think it won't cost you many times over what you save?
Concentrating control and ownership of computational ability is the opposite of the direction we should be moving. The personal computer was enormously liberating, it unleashed massive amounts of innovation and the decentralized ownership and control of computing it provides has been immensely beneficial to all of us.
reply
anon @ 24th Mar 03:20PM:
Isn't this essentially a rental model for gaming?...
Is this what people want?
reply
anon @ 24th Mar 03:41PM:
Re: owing..
Yeah there's nothing like "owning" the games that work on a single system that has faulty hardware. RROD, overheating problems and firmware. Oh yeah, the system that is updated by the system vendor, unless you never connect to the Internet to play. Of course firmware can be updated by game discs. Wow, you really do own your hardware and software.
You have the illusion of control over your hardware and software. Nothing else.
reply
Xizer @ 24th Mar 03:40PM:
Bandwidth caps
Haha! This has no chance of taking off in ass backwards countries like the United States...
reply
Laughing Man @ 24th Mar 04:33PM:
As A Machinima Director
I prefer the current model, at least then I only have to pay once for the console. Eventually, I think, with this rental business model it would be more expensive for me to keeping working on my videos. Actually for all console owners, depending on the rates they would charge, this would be more expensive in the long run. On the flip-side of this, this will probably be cheaper for pc gamers for the same reason. Consoles are a lot cheaper compared to gaming PC's, and then compare that to how much you would spend on this service for the duration you have it.
I'll wait and see on this one, for the PC this just might work.
reply
RARPSL @ 24th Mar 05:06PM:
Re: Business plan neglects the broadband ISPs
said by tiger72 :
2. The consumer paying for unlimited service should be able to use their unlimited service as they see fit. It's not the consumer's fault that their ISP's network is oversold. Hell, even with data caps, consumers have the right to use up their data caps for whatever service they want. The proportion of the bandwidth is irrelevant. How is this any different than me using bittorrent 24/7, usenet 24/7, netflix 24/7, or downloading the entire Steam catalog? What I use that bandwidth for is irrelevant.
I agree. In addition I feel that the overage charges if/when I go over the cap should not be more than the charges for the connection with cap. IOW: If I hypothetically pay $50/month for my connection and have 250GB/Month cap then if I use 500GB this month, I should pay NO MORE THAN (and probably much less than) $50 for my 250GB overage.
I am keeping this simple (and not suggesting the fairer method of Roll-Over usage in lieu of the current "Use It or Lose It" system for your PAID FOR usage up to the Cap). I am being sold 250GB of usage for my $50. Thus 250GB of extra usage is worth ONLY $50 given that that was the cost of the first 250GB (and allocating nothing to the cost of the connection/etc). Since the connection/etc is a sunk cost (ie: I pay it no matter what my usage is), I do not see why the overage (which has had that cost FULLY PAID from the initial charge) should not just be based on a $0 fixed cost with all the usage being allocated to the usage. If fact, if I add a 2nd modem NOW to my account, I get the same charge on the modem as on my original one (and get the same bandwidth and cap as the first modem so why is the charge for overage on the original modem more than if I had two modems [ie: Was two separate customers each at just under the 250GB/Month cap]?).
reply
ctceo @ 24th Mar 05:14PM:
HAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
That's all I have to say.
Okay, maybe I should add to this a bit.
Imagine if you will a day where you log onto your computer, have to watch 10 minutes of commercials, and then only get to play 15 or 20 minutes of your favorite game per week, because you've reached your ISP's cap. 'nuf said.
reply
TKJunkMail @ 24th Mar 05:16PM:
Re: Business plan neglects the broadband ISPs
said by Skippy25 :
First off you are a shill
Every time the accusation of industry shill is trotted out, this will be the reply:
"This mode of reasoning is a logical fallacy known as ad hominem: attacking the person presenting the argument, instead of pointing out a flaw in their actual argument. It's a fallacy because even if the criticism of the person is true, his argument may still be valid. You can only tell if the argument is valid by examining the actual argument to see if it is actually valid.
Attacking the person instead of the argument they present is intellectually lazy. It's a substitute for thinking. It's also 100% flawed reasoning: you don't arrive at the conclusion from the argument presented."
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
reply
Qumahlin @ 24th Mar 05:18PM:
Re: Doesn't really sound possible
said by Ahrenl :
Agreed. Playing against the computer is fun for only the five minutes it takes to intuite the algorithm that sets its strategy.
Which is only true if your doing something stupid like playing a FPS deathmatch game with bots.
Single player typically revolves around a STORY. You do realize some games have quite amazing plots right?
--
Forum Posts:7500
reply
Qumahlin @ 24th Mar 05:21PM:
Re: Way Bigger Than Just Games
said by DrModem :
Why do you want video compression on a game?
That defeats the whole purpose of making stuff look better.
To understand you would need to read the article about how the service works...
reply
ablack6596 @ 24th Mar 05:27PM:
Re: Doesn't really sound possible
But the vast majority have crappy stories.
reply
ja2007123 @ 24th Mar 05:37PM:
Great idea....
but I do not have a fast internet connection plus anyone playing Crysis will most likely to exceed their Internet usage cap.
reply
ender7074 @ 24th Mar 05:43PM:
Re: Kotaku has some decent videos up of the service today.
LOL so the vast majority of users would have something that may or may not look as good as the Wii? Well whooptie doo. This is not a knock against the Wii, personally I love to play the Wii, but camon. The graphics of the Wii are not anything to get excited about. If some company thinks that people will be satisfied with that level of graphics, they are crazy.
reply
Smith6612 @ 24th Mar 05:47PM:
Onlive...
GameTrailers has some videos on this that were posted today on the whole Onlive case and their idea. For anyone who wants to watch them, here are the links. Very interesting info by the way that might want to be included in the article if it's not in there already someplace.
Watch in HD or you forfeit your right to complain ;)
»www.gametrailers.com/player/47079.html Part 1
»www.gametrailers.com/player/47081.html Part 2
reply
james @ 24th Mar 06:06PM:
Re: Doesn't really sound possible
said by ablack6596 :
But the vast majority have crappy stories.
The vast majority of people in multiplayer are crappy as well.
reply
k1ll3rdr4g0n @ 24th Mar 07:18PM:
Re: Doesn't really sound possible
said by Nightfall :
The whole idea of using "big iron servers" to do all the AI, graphics, and so on and dumping just the graphics to your TV does sound cool. I just don't see how possible it is. I guess we will see how the product looks when (if) it is released.
I think its very much possible (explore the concept of Xclient/Xserver), however, the bandwidth requirements are pretty high EVEN for an application like firefox. Possible yes, usable? Probably not. This will defiantly be something interesting to look for though. They may even just use the Xclient/Xserver idea...we will see.
reply
Mattie_B @ 24th Mar 07:18PM:
Re: Doesn't really sound possible
said by Ahrenl :
Agreed. Playing against the computer is fun for only the five minutes it takes to intuite the algorithm that sets its strategy.
I guess you have not played the Killzone 2 AI. Their AI is the first that really impressed me.
reply
S_engineer @ 24th Mar 08:17PM:
Re: Business plan neglects the broadband ISPs
said by Skippy25 :
First off you are a shill so your opinion about what is good for consumers holds little water.
you lost any credibility with the sentences that followed this remark!
reply
Core0000 @ 24th Mar 09:02PM:
Personally speaking...
I like to have everything on my end...
I like my expensive pc.. and my consoles..
All I want is a larger road to carry my data...
But hey, that's just me...I like to keep the most control as possible over my gaming situation...
reply
compton @ 24th Mar 10:19PM:
Re: Business plan neglects the broadband ISPs
said by S_engineer :said by Skippy25 :
First off you are a shill so your opinion about what is good for consumers holds little water.
you lost any credibility with the sentences that followed this remark!
No, he hasn't lost any credibility with that statement. The reason why is every time a new service is announced there is a group of people here who take the position that the service is unfair to the ISP. When these same people time after time take very simplistic positions that favors the ISP at all cost then a reasonable conclusion could be that they are shill.
reply
compton @ 24th Mar 10:31PM:
Re: Doesn't really sound possible
said by tiger72 :said by Kearnstd :
its a bad model because people expect a game console to be useful if the net is up or not. if my net is down i cant play WoW, but i can sure know my Xbox and PS2/PS3 will still load up a game in single player mode and distract me while the net gets worked on.
This I can totally agree with.
Then don't buy the service. When you buy the service you know it depends on your Internet connection. If the possibility of your Internet service being interrupted is a deal breaker then it's not for you. What's so hard about that. I and many millions of people have VOIP phone service. We know that it depends on our Internet service, but we still got it anyway, because Internet service is very reliable these days.
reply
Cthen @ 24th Mar 10:46PM:
Re: Doesn't really sound possible
said by Kearnstd :
its a bad model because people expect a game console to be useful if the net is up or not. if my net is down i cant play WoW, but i can sure know my Xbox and PS2/PS3 will still load up a game in single player mode and distract me while the net gets worked on.
Yes but the big idea in this particular situation is the same one Blizzard has. Even though your connection is down and you can't play, your still paying your monthly fee. ;)
Then again considering not one person who replied to this article knows anything about how this really works, how do we all know that they don't have single player games for offline mode like Steam does?
--
"I like to reffer to myself as an Adult Film Efficienato." - Stuart Bondeck
reply
TheMG @ 24th Mar 11:52PM:
Latency and bandwidth caps.
Latency and bandwidth caps are why this is never going to work. At least not at the present time.
First of all, good luck streaming lossless 1920x1080 resolution graphics over a typical broadband connection, secondly, I prefer my single player games without internet lag k thanks.
With a lot of ISPs with congestion issues and capped service, this will never fly, at least not for avid gamers. For the casual gamer that doesn't want to spend money on hardware and doesn't mind lower resolutions or a bit of lag, yeah it may be fine, but everyone else no.
reply
Anonymous_ @ 25th Mar 12:13AM:
Re: Not for current gamers...
said by whiteyonenh :
I don't see people buying into this except for casual gamers. Now if they could integrate this somehow into cable/satellite settops, with maybe bluetooth controllers, now that would work. But for the majority of mainstream gamers, I don't see them switching over to this from their PC's and/or consoles anytime soon.
STB sucks TWC STB is slower then my pentium (in response time)
reply
Samwoo @ 25th Mar 12:22AM:
Re: Kotaku has some decent videos up of the service today.
Not graphics of the wii... but the resolution of a wii.
reply
S_engineer @ 25th Mar 01:21AM:
Re: Business plan neglects the broadband ISPs
said by compton :said by S_engineer :said by Skippy25 :
First off you are a shill so your opinion about what is good for consumers holds little water.
you lost any credibility with the sentences that followed this remark!
No, he hasn't lost any credibility with that statement. The reason why is every time a new service is announced there is a group of people here who take the position that the service is unfair to the ISP. When these same people time after time take very simplistic positions that favors the ISP at all cost then a reasonable conclusion could be that they are shill.
Or one could draw the conclusion that they (or he) understand the cost to businesses. These unforeseen events are game changers for businesses that have a model in place.
The simplistic view of this is unfortunately the prevailing one these days. "I want what I want when I want it" with no consideration of the ramification for these desires. If you've got a argument with his position then make it...otherwise you just look like a shill for the ignorant!
reply
dvd536 @ 25th Mar 04:48AM:
Caps
Will kill anything like this.
reply
Somnambul33t @ 25th Mar 08:25AM:
not really that great of a bargain
I posted this on Betanews.com (where they compared this to PC gaming with barely mentioning it's more a console thing):
i dont see this affecting hardcore gamers. at the very best it's cool for people that dont have time or the desire to keep up with the latest technology and/or spending $400+ in upgrades every 3 years. this could also target console gamers.
im not really sure how much cheaper this would be with an initial hardware cost + monthly fees spread over the same lifespan as an average upgrade cycle. since everyone that games already has a PC, the only added costs incurred for a gaming PC would be a gfx card, upgraded power supply, and possibly marginally higher quality motherboard, RAM, and CPU. if an average gaming rig can be built today for $900 sans monitor and accessories, you can subtract $150 for GFX card, 50 for PSU, and maybe 100 between the RAM, mobo, and CPU combined for a total of $300 extra spent to make a PC "gaming worthy" versus an average desktop. this means even if the OnLive platform hardware is free, they'd still need to charge less than $8.34/month to make this a cheaper alternative to a real gaming computer.
on a technical note, this eliminates the client computer's high system specs but requires a good net connection which may not be available. also, the OnLive system may help push a customer over his allotted bandwidth caps. taking the 5mbps number as the high end, and assuming my math is correct, that would be roughly 1.6 TB/month if the service was running and gaming 24/7 at peek bandwidth usage. i know people wont be playing 24/7 (or i hope not) but even just 40 hrs/month (~10 hrs/week of gaming) of peek bandwidth OnLive service could be as high as 90 GBs. considering Comcast's cap is 250GB/month, this could potentially lead to problems. i believe other ISPs have caps as well, including like Time Warner or another cable operator with half of Comcast's cap.
--
Somnambulator - t3h 5133pw41k3r
The Stolen Eye TF2 Server
~Choosy moms choose Jif~
reply
compton @ 25th Mar 03:25PM:
Re: Business plan neglects the broadband ISPs
said by S_engineer :
Or one could draw the conclusion that they (or he) understand the cost to businesses. These unforeseen events are game changers for businesses that have a model in place.
The simplistic view of this is unfortunately the prevailing one these days. "I want what I want when I want it" with no consideration of the ramification for these desires. If you've got a argument with his position then make it...otherwise you just look like a shill for the ignorant!
Let me ask you a question. I am a customer of Comcast Internet Services. What do you consider fair use of my Internet connection?
reply
TKJunkMail @ 25th Mar 03:57PM:
Re: Business plan neglects the broadband ISPs
said by tubbynet :
of course, this is purely speculattion based on what we think bandwidth usage will be. who knows if they have some way of transferring information hither and yon without intensive bandwidth usage.
Onlive says bandwidth usage will be huge - about 1GB/hr.
»tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090325/···ng_games
The company puts the data usage at just under a gigabyte per hour of high-definition gaming. The only Internet application with comparable consumption is high-definition video, like movies bought through iTunes, watched on Netflix Inc.'s streaming service, or downloaded from file-sharing networks.
A service unveiled this week aims to stream video games over the Internet, setting gamers on a collision course with cable and phone companies that are seeking to curb growing demands on their networks by charging for heavy usage.
For instance, Comcast Corp., the country's second-largest ISP, limits usage to 250 gigabytes per month, and cuts off repeat violators. OnLive says its users would need to play around the clock for nearly 12 straight days to reach that.
However, other Internet service providers are trying lower limits, then charging extra for those who go over. It's not clear which approach will win out, but subscribers on low-limit ISPs could quickly find themselves paying far more for their Internet connection, particularly since many gamers spend more than 20 hours a week on a game.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
reply
Skippy25 @ 27th Mar 04:47PM:
Re: Business plan neglects the broadband ISPs
Did I not have a 2nd and 3rd point to my original posting?
I am sure the last point you and him really didn't like...
reply
Skippy25 @ 27th Mar 04:55PM:
Re: Perhaps..
Why do you ask me to have faith in engineers to work with segmenting and yet you can't have that same faith in those engineers making it work without segmenting? My faith benefits the consumer. Your faith benefits stock jockey's. I think I will keep my faith.
They ARE dumbpipes and need to act accordingly, or be regulated into it. When it serves them, they want to let the market decide. So then let the market decide. By the very nature of the network and the very nature of the market the more people that get on the service the more it will be saturated and the more people will go else where that is not so saturated. Thus the network will balance itself. If they want more customers, then they add more bandwidth. THAT is how the market should work.
The problem is these DUMBPIPES don't want to invest to make that market model work. They want to take the current expenditures and try to cram more and more on the pipe while introducing new revenue streams and use "network management" as the bandage to do so.
reply
jebediah @ 20th May 11:11AM:
Re: Kotaku has some decent videos up of the service today.
said by HeavyC :
They were saying 4 to 5 Mbps would be enough to render a 720p game at 60fps. 1.2 Mbps would be needed to do a Wii quality SD image at 60fps.
720p, that'll look incredible! No, wait, a couple years ago that would've been impressive. I'm sure one will sacrifice other visual details as well in order for this to work even halfway decently. I'll spend a few extra bucks and keep building my own systems. I think they're gambling on the fact that a lot of people think it takes $2-5K to buy a good gaming PC and it's good for only 6 months. Nothing could be further from the truth.
reply
Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC
