Nvidia poised to change gaming with cloud graphics chips

[Snailface]

Option 1: Your video game lives in the cloud, wherever the hell that is.
Option 2: Your video game lives on your hard drive, in your home.

-->Option 2

Option 3 Your video game lives on your hard drive, in your home, and travels with you through the clouds to any
temporary home.

If they can sent the stream from their place, you should be able to sent the stream from your home.
Cloud gaming doesn't have to be all bad.

I don't think what your describing is really cloud gaming. The actual game is never in your possession.

The problem with this business model is that your ownership of said game is contingent on contract stipulations (like paying for a service indefinitely) or the company existing in the future. When I buy a game, I want it to be my property forever -- not rented out at the whim of a company.

 

[KingVamp]

I don't think what your describing is really cloud gaming. The actual game is never in your possession.

Maybe not, but having the option to stream play any game from your home to any device, seem like a better option.
A middle point between the two.

 

[Depravo]

Internet speeds are so bad in the area of town where I live I'd struggle to play Pacman via cloud gaming.

 

[Magsor]

I don't see what kind of negativeness you guys see in this news.
You guys just need to think outside the box a little all I see here the opportunity to run your own cloud. This technology has a bright future it has many uses.

 

[Foxi4]

Cloud gaming - the bane of my existence. No physical medium, no downloaded files, temporary license... Paying for something you do not own, neither in the physical nor the virtual plane - today's equivalent of Arcades, minus the awesomeness of getting together with other gamers. I hope this fad dies soon.

 

[exangel]

Option 1: Your video game lives in the cloud, wherever the hell that is.
Option 2: Your video game lives on your hard drive, in your home.

-->Option 2

Option 3 Your video game lives on your hard drive, in your home, and travels with you through the clouds to any
temporary home.

If they can sent the stream from their place, you should be able to sent the stream from your home.
Cloud gaming doesn't have to be all bad.

I don't think what your describing is really cloud gaming. The actual game is never in your possession.

The problem with this business model is that your ownership of said game is contingent on contract stipulations (like paying for a service indefinitely) or the company existing in the future. When I buy a game, I want it to be my property forever -- not rented out at the whim of a company.

For what it's worth I own two copies of Bastion & Trine - One on OnLive and one on Steam. I actually bought it on Steam because OnLive didn't take advantage of the 1080p resolution that the graphics of Bastion were hand-drawn to full quality. I got it on OnLive first because they gave me a coupon since I'd had the account since launch and never done anything but use the hell out of demo feature & spectate other players before buying other games (such as Darksiders) in Steam.. as far as Trine, I got that on OnLive because the humble bundle that included it gave me an OnLive key.

OnLive is pretty nice, (edit: for those who have sustained access to it and especially those who play from multiple devices) and I actually think that it's going to be nice gaining momentum, but my point was really more about how I have Trine on both OnLive and Steam:

Perhaps publishers could think differently and take the idea of Trine's particpation in Humble Indie Bundle providing both OnLive & Steam keys-- and offer a bonus cloud service license for physical product sales or promotionally. Or even for a DLC charge.

 

[Veho]

Cloud gaming - the bane of my existence. [...] I hope this fad dies soon.

Well, it's the future of gaming. Get used to it, gramps.

 

[exangel]

Cloud gaming - the bane of my existence. [...] I hope this fad dies soon.

Well, it's the future of gaming. Get used to it, gramps.

Agreed.
I would have to say most of the casual gaming public, which is spending more and more on games such as the shit on FB and for small prices in app stores -- will prefer to use a client such as OnLive which doesn't take up much storage space due to its nature. (edit: Also more user-friendly for people who are wary of running installation software out of fear of toolbars and spyware. I assist a number of my family/friends with PC maintenance and most people just don't learn proper maintenance skills including recognizing when installation programs bundle unwanted shit onto their install.. because they don't read. Most non-enthusiast people would at least consider, if not prefer, an alternative which means not maintaining software on their local system, if it performs just as well and doesn't cost more. If a safe company makes the installation choices for them and every game just works, why WOULD most people want all the sophisticated configuration options?)
In the not too distant future, although storage prices will be much better, don't be surprised by the popularity of people opting-out of installing 10+ GB games like Darksiders if they can just stream it..
Hell. Before I wound up getting another SSD to seperate my Steam directory from my non-Steam games and other programs, I almost bought Darksiders on OnLive just because of the silliness of it being touch-control compatible.

Aside from streaming games, other cloud applications like Steam's savegame cloud & cloud backup services such as Dropbox -- are amazing.

on topic, nVidia helping to better develop such technology is great. it's not like they're going to sacrifice development of enthusiast-level graphics chips at this point in the game.

 

[triassic911]

Cloud gaming - the bane of my existence. [...] I hope this fad dies soon.

Well, it's the future of gaming. Get used to it, gramps.

It won't be the future if it doesn't become successful. Hopefully it won't, as the cons outweigh the pros.

 

[Ultymoo]

Two things. The first is what everyone's been saying: No internet, no games. The next? What about latency and laggy connections?

 

[air2004]

I didn't live in the 60's but it looks like the 60's are making a comeback. In the 60's and 70's it was mainframe computing , in 2012 we "they" want to move us back to the mainframe with a new name. Maybe this is why the mayan calender ends in 2012.

 

[exangel]

I'm not in direct opposition to the naysayers - latency and outages will deprive you of access to your cloud, and this sucks - but I really feel that if publishers look at things from another perspective and allow cloud access to a game their customers buy as an additional option, they'll reap more rewards. One of the things I love about having Bastion on OnLive is that I can play it on my shit-ass 1.3 GHz dualcore laptop with integrated graphics, and it is as fluid as playing it on my local install on my desktop. It's slightly laggy but noticeable if I'm running from Wi-Fi, and I would never prefer a cloud version of a multiplayer game on WiFi (though I play multiplayer, locally-installed games over Wi-Fi with low latency (under 60ms) on a daily basis).

On another note, cloud access completely eliminates piracy. This is why publishers who contract with OnLive put up with the 40% cut OnLive takes.

edit: punctuation..

 

[Foxi4]

Cloud gaming - the bane of my existence. [...] I hope this fad dies soon.

Well, it's the future of gaming. Get used to it, gramps.

No, it's regression to the stage where gaming was not affordable thus people played in Arcades simply because their gaming rigs (if any) were not capable to deliver.

The idea of the cloud is accessability, but when you think about it for a moment, it's less accessible.

Low reception? No game. Restricted access due to location of connection? No game. No Wi-Fi in range? No game. Server down? No game. Forgot to pay your subscription in time? No game.

Add decreased quality and content and you're in for a ride. I can take my games anywhere and play them anytime - can Onlive players? No.

There are benefits - games normally non-multiplat can be played multiplat, but would you really want to play, for instance, a game designed strictly for PC on a smartphone? No, it's a painful experience.

Initiatives that involve full cloud integration stall technological progress, stronger machines become obsolete when weak ones can do the same thing... In theory. In practice they do it in a s*it way.

Cloud's not for me, raving teen. I'm too old for this...

 

[Guild McCommunist]

No, it's regression to the stage where gaming was not affordable thus people played in Arcades simply because their gaming rigs (if any) were not capable to deliver.

The idea of the cloud is accessability, but when you think about it for a moment, it's less accessible.

Low reception? No game. Restricted access due to location of connection? No game. No Wi-Fi in range? No game. Server down? No game. Forgot to pay your subscription in time? No game.

That's why it's the future and still in "beta stages" at the moment. We're developing constantly faster anywhere internet (like nowadays we have 4G which can support some cloud gaming), WiFi hotspots are becoming a lot more present (over here, some popular public parks even sport WiFi), I've never had many server issues with OnLive, and not every cloud gaming service goes by subscription (OnLive has an optional subscription but you can use it without as well).

I mean right now it's a minority but as the internet develops in the next 10-20 years, I could definitely see it becoming a popular mode of gaming. I mean you don't have to worry about paying above $200 for a console, companies don't have to worry about piracy, and its just accessible to a larger audience.

 

[triassic911]

Cloud gaming - the bane of my existence. [...] I hope this fad dies soon.

Well, it's the future of gaming. Get used to it, gramps.

No, it's regression to the stage where gaming was not affordable thus people played in Arcades simply because their gaming rigs (if any) were not capable to deliver.

The idea of the cloud is accessability, but when you think about it for a moment, it's less accessible.

Low reception? No game. Restricted access due to location of connection? No game. No Wi-Fi in range? No game. Server down? No game. Forgot to pay your subscription in time? No game.

Add decreased quality and content and you're in for a ride. I can take my games anywhere and play them anytime - can Onlive players? No.

There are benefits - games normally non-multiplat can be played multiplat, but would you really want to play, for instance, a game designed strictly for PC on a smartphone? No, it's a painful experience.

Initiatives that involve full cloud integration stall technological progress, stronger machines become obsolete when weak ones can do the same thing... In theory. In practice they do it in a s*it way.

Cloud's not for me, raving teen. I'm too old for this...

You didn't have to explain all that. Everyone already knows about and/or will experience these issues because they are obvious. It's why Onlive is not as big as it wants to be. I'm surprised it has a userbase at all.

 

[air2004]

On another note, cloud access completely eliminates piracy. This is why publishers who contract with OnLive put up with the 40% cut OnLive takes.

edit: punctuation..

Then publishers are morons. They are trading one form of piracy which is people illegally downloading their games and maybe costing them 10-15% of profits. vs The corprate piracy that is taking 40% of their profits and claiming it will stop piracy.

 

[Foxi4]

No, it's regression to the stage where gaming was not affordable thus people played in Arcades simply because their gaming rigs (if any) were not capable to deliver.

The idea of the cloud is accessability, but when you think about it for a moment, it's less accessible.

Low reception? No game. Restricted access due to location of connection? No game. No Wi-Fi in range? No game. Server down? No game. Forgot to pay your subscription in time? No game.

That's why it's the future and still in "beta stages" at the moment. We're developing constantly faster anywhere internet (like nowadays we have 4G which can support some cloud gaming), WiFi hotspots are becoming a lot more present (over here, some popular public parks even sport WiFi), I've never had many server issues with OnLive, and not every cloud gaming service goes by subscription (OnLive has an optional subscription but you can use it without as well).

I mean right now it's a minority but as the internet develops in the next 10-20 years, I could definitely see it becoming a popular mode of gaming. I mean you don't have to worry about paying above $200 for a console, companies don't have to worry about piracy, and its just accessible to a larger audience.

I suppose that I'm just old school like that - I reject the idea of pay to play. With Onlive you don't really buy a game, you buy the "priviledge of playing" which is enough for some but not for me. A service never lasts forever, data you own either on a specified medium or on your HDD can be preserved, even re-sold at some point. This is really the core of my problem with the cloud.

 

[Fishaman P]

Just another way to require an internet connection to play games.

What hapens with those of us stuck with slow internet, like my 768k down?

EDIT: Oh, and a key word here... LATENCY.

 

[Forstride]

I don't mind cloud/streaming games, as it's convenient and definitely cost effective. Not really a big fan of digital distribution to begin with, but I don't see it as a bad thing, as it certainly benefits a lot of people (Those who can't afford to upgrade their PC, or those who don't want to/can't install games).

 

[Veho]

The idea of the cloud is accessability, but when you think about it for a moment, it's less accessible.
Low reception? No game. Restricted access due to location of connection? No game. No Wi-Fi in range? No game. Server down? No game. Forgot to pay your subscription in time? No game.

The same is true for every online/cable service. They depend on you being connected, in front of your PC/TV, monthly subscription, servers working, all sorts of restrictions and downsides one could point out.

Take streaming video for example. Netflix or whatnot (we don't get Netflix 'round these parts so I'm not sure what it does but to my knowledge it's some sort of glorified Youtube with arguably better content). Low reception? No movies. Restricted access due to location of connection? No movies. No Wi-Fi in range? No movies. Server down? No movies. Forgot to pay your subscription in time? No movies. And yet, video-on-demand is pretty successful.

Settle down and drink your prune juice, grampa.