Instead, they did everything they could to lock out independent reviewers with NDAs and closed demonstrations. Those of us who know anything about bandwidth and compression and (especially) latency can see the enormous technical obstacles facing a service like this, and startups like Onlive never did anything to explain how they intended to solve them. The people who developed streamed games seem very, very confused (at best). Why would you want to use it to transfer your game's video instead of, uh, a DVI cable, which is capable of 4 Gb/s? The people who developed DVI apparently understood that that 1920 x 1200 pixels w/ 24 bits/pixels 60Hz results in bandwidth well over 3 Gb/s. Let's say you're lucky enough to have a 100mb/s connection. Then there are the bandwidth requirements. Internet latency is often worse and certainly more unpredictable than LCD monitor response time, and with streamed games it applies to audio and keyboard/controller/etc input too. FPSes) due to their double-digit response times. Some people consider IPS monitors unsuitable for games requiring fast reflexes (i.e. Not even the most twitchy DRM existing today has that problem. And any interruption in the connection that lasts more than a few tenths of a second is going to be behave like the equivalent of a "freeze" or "hang" that you'd NEVER tolerate in a properly local-hosted game.
All you get is streaming video/audio and all the lag you'd expect (including controller lag), which is a recipe for disaster in North America. Well, a streamed game is even worse than that would be. Imagine if the old Ubisoft always-on DRM were an inherent, unremoveable aspect of the game system rather than just something tacked on to a few individual games after the fact, such that Ubisoft couldn't even begrudgingly neuter it in a patch. This is how I always explain streamed games to people who can't immediately see the horrible problems with it:
0 kommentar(er)
