Nvidia didn't do OnLive, did they?Yeah, but the problem is *it's already been tried*. This isn't a new, risky business model that might be a slam dunk or a flop. It's old hat at this point, and it was a flop, it was a flop and a half.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnLive
The lessons are learned, the technology simply does not work in this respect. You cannot make in-house streaming better because the of the laws of physics and universal gaming expectations do not let you. Speaking personally, streaming from a device in my house to another device in my house over *wireless* is unacceptable, over wired it is acceptable (though barely, I doubt I could stand it if my vision was better).
while in the car or bus with a lightweight laptop using his smart phone as a tether.
Gotta say that sounds awful for how much you'd be paying to use it.
Nvidia didn't do OnLive, did they?
I'm not saying Nvidia will be successful, but different companies will continue to try until one of them succeeds, or they all give up. Apple was not the first company to try the touch screen. That didn't stop them from being successful on their attempt.
Do you mean "awful" as in it would be difficult or awkward to use? Assuming the car, bus or train was not crowded I don't think it would be awful.
With that mentioned, even under ideal circumstances I don't see the average person racking up too high of a bill. Therefore, I wonder how long that $25 worth of time is good for? Is there an expiration date on when the 10 or 20 hours time needs to be used up?
They didn't, but onlive's failure wasn't that they weren't big enough. It was streaming from a catalog (think Netflix), that was actually free for like two years and they STILL couldn't get people to use it because it was terribad. Compare that to $2.50 an hour *and* you have to buy the game. The math doesn't work, the physics doesn't work. It carries all the hallmarks of a PHB's brainfart turned into a product.
Ever used a game streaming service? It's inherently pretty awful, certainly so if you have to pay for it.
Do you mean "awful" as in it would be difficult or awkward to use? Assuming the car, bus or train was not crowded I don't think it would be awful.
With that mentioned, even under ideal circumstances I don't see the average person racking up too high of a bill. Therefore, I wonder how long that $25 worth of time is good for? Is there an expiration date on when the 10 or 20 hours time needs to be used up?
Double paying data + service
I can't help but think that this is a technology demonstration in search of a mass market... e.g. Newly funded F2P/P2W gaming company trying to differentiate themselves from all the other F2P/P2W casual games... Cast your game to your 4K TV for only 2.5 credits per hour!
If by turn based you mean wait 7 days for building x to build then yes, that's exactly what many of those games are.Could it support a totally-new Genre, "Massively Multi-player Turn-based strategy"? Or is that what FarmVille and other "casual" games are?
Like I said, Nvidia did not do it before. They only have info on what you could see on the outside of the company, not the internal workings. People will keep trying at it until someone figures out how to make it work. I don't think this will work in a mass scale at least, but that doesn't mean Nvidia shouldn't try. It doesn't mean Nvidia will not learn something new and I have a hard time believing this is their end game, but more of a test run so they can see how the hardware works. Then at a later date, they try a more consumer friendly model using what they learned from this.They didn't, but onlive's failure wasn't that they weren't big enough. It was streaming from a catalog (think Netflix), that was actually free for like two years and they STILL couldn't get people to use it because it was terribad. Compare that to $2.50 an hour *and* you have to buy the game. The math doesn't work, the physics doesn't work. It carries all the hallmarks of a PHB's brainfart turned into a product.
Could it support a totally-new Genre, "Massively Multi-player Turn-based strategy"? Or is that what FarmVille and other "casual" games are?
I think Shadow of Mordor falls into this category.
I have trouble loading heavy content websites when even in 4g because shoddy wireless signal and you think continuous high bandwidth streaming will not hiccup? I think mobile streaming is a pipedream. Maybe a slow 4d strategy game will be palatable, but a shooter or rpg? never....while in the car or bus with a lightweight laptop using his smart phone as a tether
Why would a player pay 'rent' to use a GTX1080 to play games that are not demanding top tier GPU?Could it support a totally-new Genre, "Massively Multi-player Turn-based strategy"? Or is that what FarmVille and other "casual" games are?
I don't believe he specifically is talking about this model, but cloud streaming in general.Why would a player pay 'rent' to use a GTX1080 to play games that are not demanding top tier GPU?