PDA

View Full Version : How PC games would work in cloud computing?



icett
October 14th, 2009, 07:14 PM
I cant understand how PC games would work in cloud computing i.e on the internet as the internet connections still are not that fast and reliable and thus one can not enjoy peaceful gaming as they do currently in offline mode exept playing multiplayer. But online play is not so reliable and stable. Also internet costs much. I think until the internet is available as widespread as Radio broadcasts like FM, SW, MW, signals received through a telescopic antenna and are free cloud computing and cloud gaming would not be a success. What you think?

Muffinabus
October 14th, 2009, 07:21 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onlive

CharmyBee
October 14th, 2009, 07:23 PM
I don't like the idea of playing through the cloud with images trasmitted, but i'd like the convenience of retaining my saved games. There are many times when I had to start a game over due to a misplaced directory, reinstalled OS, or different computer...

Paqman
October 14th, 2009, 08:54 PM
I think until the internet is available as widespread as Radio broadcasts like FM, SW, MW, signals received through a telescopic antenna and are free cloud computing and cloud gaming would not be a success. What you think?

Correct.

But the whole point of cloud computing on the desktop is that high-bandwidth connections are becoming widespread and cheap. Speeds up to 100Mb/s are available in some places already.

t0p
October 14th, 2009, 09:02 PM
Correct.

But the whole point of cloud computing on the desktop is that high-bandwidth connections are becoming widespread and cheap. Speeds up to 100Mb/s are available in some places already.

cheap != free
some places != everywhere

Cloud cmputing might be a fine idea in a futuristic utopia where we've all got light fibre hanging out our <bleep>. Until then,it's just another "us & them" divide.

Frak
October 14th, 2009, 09:40 PM
cheap != free
some places != everywhere

Cloud cmputing might be a fine idea in a futuristic utopia where we've all got light fibre hanging out our <bleep>. Until then,it's just another "us & them" divide.
Well, cheap is becoming free (various plans by various governments to hand out high speed internet connections over WiFi and the like), and some places is becoming everywhere. Our local government has already started putting up poles (sponsored by AT&T ATM) in the efforts to make high speed internet public.

It's not a utopia, but it's what's necessary.

Paqman
October 14th, 2009, 10:15 PM
cheap != free
some places != everywhere


Sure, and that's why we only run lightweight apps in the cloud right now. But in a few short years things will be different. Which is why people are starting to think seriously about it now.

t0p
October 14th, 2009, 10:21 PM
Well, cheap is becoming free (various plans by various governments to hand out high speed internet connections over WiFi and the like), and some places is becoming everywhere. Our local government has already started putting up poles (sponsored by AT&T ATM) in the efforts to make high speed internet public.


Here in the UK, the government have got a plan to make broadband available to everyone. But certainly not for free!



It's not a utopia, but it's what's necessary.

Necessary for whom? Not for the average (wo)man in the street. I've got friends who only use computers at work, and have absolutely no use for internet connection at home. And I have other friends who don't even use computers at work. A while ago, out of curiosity, I asked all my friends if they knew what Linux is. A significant minority weren't too clear in their minds about what Windows is! I think a lot of us forum users, being rather tech-minded, forget that there are a great many people who have little or no interest in computing and the internet. Mention "internet banking" to these people, they'll want to know where on the computer is the slot for the money to come out of!

I'll tell you who thinks it's "necessary" for us all to have high-speed internet access: the companies who want to sell us that access, and those who want to sell us content once we have that access. Those companies would dearly love for everyone to use their internet services all of the time. That's who universal access is "necessary" for.

Paqman
October 14th, 2009, 10:38 PM
But certainly not for free!


Probably not, but then we don't get TV or radio free in the UK either. There are some people getting online for free though, Sky customers for example, and there's plenty of free wifi around. The price of being connected is coming down all the time though (except for 3G access, which is still a ripoff)



Necessary for whom? Not for the average (wo)man in the street.


75% of 16-24 year olds (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8305731.stm) disagree with you. High-bandwidth connectivity is becoming ubiquitous, and will be considered as necessary as any other utility by everyone in the future.

NoaHall
October 14th, 2009, 10:40 PM
I believe that plan from "UK-global" internet has been cancelled. It was deemed too expensive.

starcannon
October 14th, 2009, 10:48 PM
In a certain way of looking at it, many games have been in the clouds for quite some time now.

The client is available at the games website; sure it installs some files locally on your computer, but so far as I know that does not seem to be a determining factor in what is or is not cloud computing. Once installed, the user fires up a client, and access's their game data at the remote host, usually owned/operated by the game manufacture. That system of data access, as far as I know, is cloud computing in a nutshell. With games, the UI is a bit too heavy to keep them remotely, so the problem is solved with the client hosting those bits.

Just my .02

Paqman
October 14th, 2009, 10:56 PM
I believe that plan from "UK-global" internet has been cancelled. It was deemed too expensive.

BT just announced the other day (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8298382.stm) they were going to be able to put fibre-to-the-premises into a lot more homes than they originally thought they could afford.


In a certain way of looking at it, many games have been in the clouds for quite some time now.


Yep, most MMOs are played largely in the cloud. And it goes without saying that all browser-based games are played entirely in the cloud.

It's going to be very interesting when we get full 3D graphics support in the web standards.

mcduck
October 14th, 2009, 10:57 PM
If you'd actually expect the game to run in the cloud you'd need rather insane transfer rates. Or you'd have to tolerate compressed graphics & sound, and would still need a powerful enough computer to decompress them.

For example the 1080p resolution you get from current gaming consoles requires transfer rate of 4,9Gb/s.. And that's for picture only, no sound.

..and then comes the issue of latency. Things have to happen exactly at the time you push buttons or the gaming experience will suffer considerably.

So it will definitely take some advancements in Internet connections before cloud computing will be able to provide similar gaming experience we can get by running the game on our own computer/console.

Still, some types of games would of course work just fine even with current connections. For example turn-based strategy games don't require high refresh rates or small response time in the UI, and could easily be played directly from the cloud. And of curse the client can be run locally and just access data from the clod, as in the examples mentioned above. But that relies on you still having powerful enough machine to run the game, which isn't usually the idea behind cloud computing. You are not actually doing the computing in the cloud, you are doing it on your own machine and only using data from the cloud.

NoaHall
October 14th, 2009, 11:04 PM
BT just announced the other day (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8298382.stm) they were going to be able to put fibre-to-the-premises into a lot more homes than they originally thought they could afford.


Ehm. BT != GOVERNMENT plans ;)

handy
October 14th, 2009, 11:08 PM
Apart from the various internet based MMORPGs, there is becoming more & more browser based games, e.g. Doom & Quake.

As others have previously mentioned; in the end it comes down to the limitations that bandwidth places on both graphic & action intensity.

Humanity has a few issues to deal with over the coming decades; if they don't send us broke one way or another, then the wide distribution of cheap high speed internet will just keep on marching on.

Last week my ISP, emailed me to let me know that they have just opened a new fibre line between Oz & Guam, & that due to the lowering of costs to them they could now offer more bandwidth (on suitable exchanges), increase the size of the account download limits before the speed tapers & lower all account subscription costs. :)

mick222
October 14th, 2009, 11:43 PM
Probably not, but then we don't get TV or radio free in the UK either. There are some people getting online for free though, Sky customers for example,
Free ? they have to pay for sky so it's not free also you need to sign up for their phone package.

Paqman
October 14th, 2009, 11:58 PM
Free ? they have to pay for sky so it's not free also you need to sign up for their phone package.

You don't need to sign up for Sky Talk, although they'll try and get you to.

But yes, the packages do start at free if you're already getting your digital TV from them. Yes, you're paying for the TV, but switching your broadband to them will cut whatever you're paying for your broadband to zero. Personally I went for their top package. £10/month for 20MB/s uncapped is a great deal.