Nvidia GM: Next-gen consoles will be the last
Chip maker's cloud gaming GM unfazed by OnLive outcome, says all cloud gaming issues are solvable
If cloud computing is indeed the future of gaming, it might be a future without consoles. Speaking with VentureBeat, Nvidia's GeForce Grid Cloud Gaming general manager Phil Eisler said as much, suggesting experiences that are beyond the capability of cloud gaming in the near future (like 4K resolution) might be more than consumers are interested in (or given the price of compatible displays, prepared to take advantage of).
"They say this is the last console, and I am certainly a believer in that," Eisler said. "The last one is almost 10 years old now in terms of the technology. As we go through time, the good thing about cloud gaming is it's going to get better every year. One of the reasons we're investing in it is we see that there are some issues today, but they're all solvable and they're all moving in the right direction. Bandwidth is going up. The cost of server rooms is going down. We're bringing latency down. The experience will just get better and better every year, to the point where I think it will become the predominant way that people play games."
Eisler also touched on the recent news surrounding cloud gaming services OnLive (which declared insolvency last month, laid off half its staffers, and sold its operations to a venture capital firm) and Gaikai (which was acquired by Sony for $380 million). He noted that cloud "naysayers certainly had a field day" with the OnLive debacle, but sees its troubles as self-inflicted more than an indictment of cloud gaming's potential. As for Gaikai, Eisler said, "Clearly Sony believes in it enough to put their $380 million dollars into it. That was equally supportive for those people that are pro-cloud gaming. Anybody who's in the game console business is clearly awakened to the potential of streaming games to TVs."
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Pier Castonguay on 21st September 2012 10:05pm
You know what I think? I think that if both Sony and MS go a cloud-only route and Nintendo doesn't (because they generally lag behind in these things) I think that Nintendo will have their most successful console ever. The first sign and reports of not being able to access your cloud games or the first widespread hack of accounts and loss of money and credit card info and you'll get people avoiding those systems like the plague. At least when PSN was taken offline for months everyone's PS3 worked. At least when XBL wasn't working for a few months everyone's 360 worked. Not so for cloud gaming systems.
I can, just about if I try really hard, imagine my current internet connection being performant enough to remove controller lag at some point in the future. What I can't envision is it ever being fast enough to outclass what my PC can already do right now for visuals. Why would I want compression artefacts even if they're small and infrequent which they won't be.
As stated, you will still need some sort of box to run this on, so we're just talking about a cheaper box than a console. And does price put people off buying consoles now? Not really. Plenty of bitching and moaning about price all the time, but it seems to me that everyone has one anyway.
I'm out.
Edited 2 times. Last edit by Paul Johnson on 22nd September 2012 11:05am
Music is similar, although people do tend to listen to tracks more than once. But music files are much smaller, and most music streaming services allow paid users to store favourite tracks, allowing off-line use, and meaning you don't have to constantly use up data on the same music.
Just because it works on over media does not mean it will work for games. Streaming code may work better, but then you lose all the cited benefits of On Live, as you need to have the right spec equipment, the code is sent to you meaning it doesn't have anti-piracy effects.
It just seems to be a solution to a problem that no one feels they have. This may change in time, but I'm not convinced.
People like to point out that Gaikai may be an ideal way to sample a demo, is it not also an expensive way to deliver a demo? Also, if in the demo, lag is noticeable and picture quality suffers, people with less understanding of the problem may take that as the game being unresponsive and having rough graphics, and deciding not to buy the game based on faults that actually lie with the demo delivery method ("Hey I was interested in shooter X, but I tried the demo, and compared to CoD, it seems unresponsive and the it don't look good.") If demos start discouraging people from buying the games, then there is a major problem.
If technology improves, will this lead to an increased cost in providing the service? If Sony start only offering demos via stream, does this mean anyone without a 5M connection with low latency won't try any demos? Is streaming all games anyone plays, in the way that On Live or Gaikai do, a good use of the Internet bandwidth, or will it put more strain on our communication network.
"Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should. " Dr Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park ;)
I'll keep my console.
In fact where I live, they're ridiculously subpar. I can see it getting better in future, but it won't ever be 100x quicker in homes even if businesses can get a direct connection to the backbone.
Plus, I don't want a compromised experience either. In 10 years time if I can run a game at 4096 by 3072, then that's the rez I want my games running at wherever they come from. And I can categorically state that no tech within 20 years will be piping that into my living room. That's a DVD per second, and there won't ever be a reason for comms companies to lay that kinda piping to tens of millions of homes, especially without charging so much for it that a console would be cheaper.
I agree with the above sentiment; this is a solution looking for a problem.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Paul Johnson on 22nd September 2012 3:07pm
And as it so happens I am sitting on a 122mb line now, so stuff is getting better all the time. If the rate of progress continues, (and frankly, the fiber cables are made from sand, so there is no limit in growth due to lack of materials) I can expect my first 1gb line in 5 years, and 7gb in 10 years.
Don't worry, we'll "fix" the speed of light.
Datacenter overhead costs:
Don't worry, we got free computers
ISP bandwidth limitations:
Don't worry about those few extra bucks you will be paying
Compression artifacts:
Don't worry, those codecs designed for movie content will magically rewrite themselves for games and their constant tunnel vision.
Remote area Internet:
Don't worry, by 2022 we will all be living in cities eating Soylent Green anyway.
GPU virtualization:
Don't worry, our nVidia graphics cards will have so much power, developers will only be able to use a fraction of it for one game anyways. So we will run 10 current gen games on one piece of current gen graphics hardware.
If you've done six impossible things this morning, why not round it off with breakfast at Milliways, the Restaurant at the End of the Universe
Once the speed goes up, the caps will rise the same way. The only reason we have caps now is because the mass of people using the network increased at a faster pace then network speeds did, but unless city centers increase in size of 50% each year, then the speeds will outpace it and caps will rise.
Stop thinking about internet speed in the same way we think about food/water or other sparse resources. Internet speed is made up by sand, you can continue to upgrade it into infinity. Prices will sink, quality will rise, and this will continue until price is near zero and speed is near infinite, in the same way the cost/quality of a transistors has. This has been empirically proven for the last 30 years, and unless someone has evidence for what has change to prevent this from continuing onward, I see no reason why I should believe otherwise.
Seriously? The day a damned US service provider LOWERS the price on their broadband by NOT bundling it with the other plans they offer or charging twenty bucks to ship a finger-sized USB adapter that costs fifty to a hundred to buy from them and doesn't come with any guarantee it will work (and nope, it can't be returned) is the day actual ethics comes to that side of the communications industry.
Quality will rise, YES, but guess who has to pay for that quality because we're all too stupid to yell at these companies that indeed, prices SHOULD be lower, period? We're force-fed the lie that better technology always means more expensive technology when you should be paying less as time goes on, not beings shoehorned into contracts and fine-print agreements where you can't even sue should it be made clear that yup, you were being ripped off on fees for years.
The ability to make fibre-optic cable is not the limiting factor that keeps internet slow, as much as the fact you then have to dig up the road to lay the stuff. If that was done a few years ago, the council will wait years to do it again. That is why in my hometown the houses built on a new development 10 years ago have worse internet than the houses built in the 60s, the cabling was put down more recent so they are way down the list of areas to improve.
Greg: I am paying less for my 122mb line then I was for my 2mb line 10 years ago, and that is not even taking inflation into consideration. I am on the same 1 year type of contract that I was back then, and I still stick a cable into the wall to get the signal. Speeds improved, prices down, quality of service rose.
And while I can appreciate all the anecdotal evidence being posted here, between Butler's Law and Nielsen's Law there is so much evidence that internet speeds will rise with a faster and faster rate, no amount of "I have it so bad" or "corporations will never allow it" can convince me.
Case in point really. I'm sitting on a 2Mb line right now. I could upgrade my console, but I cannot upgrade my telecoms company.
Matt, there's an awful lot of rose tinted glasses wearing there. Pure optimism is great and all, but I'm afraid business reality will kick in long before you see your nirvana. And all these massively desperate fixes you mention, like moving TV signals etc? Why would anyone do that. We want games, we can buy a console which for many of us is a few hours worth of wages once ever.
As has been said, this is a solution looking for a problem. Even if we had every one one of those wet dream things you've mentioned in this thread, how will that still outweigh the benefit of having a console under my TV ? If anyone ever answers that question, I'll sign right up.
Edited 2 times. Last edit by Paul Johnson on 23rd September 2012 6:08pm
What the pro camp are trying to force us to swallow is that in 20 years we'll be playing games this way. I assume they mean games of current gen quality, but in 20 years time, as current gen quality is what I see in their examples for bandwidth and what can be demoed now.
Imagine what a console could manage from 20 years into the future. Is this new system gonna be streaming games of that quality? No. Just no.
If you are sitting on a 2mbit, that is like you holding up your Nokia 3310 and proclaiming how the WAP on is horrendous.
You also need to understand, high internet speeds is only used for gaming in a tiny portion, progress will happen, no matter if the entire gaming industry fell into dust tomorrow. We have no impact what so ever on this trend, it will happen, no matter if we get a new console or not.
For the considerable next 5 years, its makes sense to have a console for home entertainment.
Whereas maybe a smaller nation like sweeden, or heavily integrated network like japan/korea are at the forefront or internet. But unfortunately, for the rest of us plebs..seeing as most of the roads are already recently dug up, it'll be osmetime before we have a whiff of something regular and decent, much less super fast broadband. (its just all a illusion/false promise)
You see, this is where the rose tinted glasses come from. You're there in your expensive office, doubtless living in a major city. Pretty ivory tower for someone pertaining to understand the issues. I live on the Isle of Wight and my computer business is run out of a barn conversion. We get 2Mb at work and I get 3Mb at home. That's the fastest option available unless we pay to dig the roads up ourself. I know that for a fact as I phone BT every six months about it.
Hard cheese? Maybe, but I'll ask again: I've highlighted a real world issues without trying. So what compelling problem is being solved for anyone here with onlive? Customer reduction?
>> The only thing preventing UK from having internet on par with the Scandinavian countries or Japan/Korea/Taiwan, is time
No, the only thing stopping us is having one telecoms company with no competition. And that will never change regardless of how much bollocks the govt tries to hide that behing with all these other lease sellers. You might pay a bill to someone else, but BT own the wires. Anyone else here think BT are a model of consumer focus? lmao
Edited 2 times. Last edit by Paul Johnson on 23rd September 2012 9:44pm
What the hell good is having a 122 Mb connection if you have latency? You can't buffer a video game like you can buffer a streamed movie.
@Mats
You can't be serious. Sure we've got awesome connections available all over Scandinavia. Doesn't give you the right to deliver your Disney-esque clap-your-hands-and-believe fairytale.
Laying the cables is easy enough, but if your provider is happy wit the current state of affairs - delivering crappy internet and still get paid for it - things are not going to improve anytime soon, sand or not.
Satellite TV, disc and download gaming, I predict, -will- go away. And 4k resolutions? They'll come too - that's just a bandwidth issue.
Lag, as Jim says, is the current issue - that will definitely come down in 10 years, though. And that's what nVidia are talking about here. They're not saying that cloud gaming's going to cancel out consoles tomorrow, or even next year, they're talking about sometime after the year 2020...
Don't fall into the trap of thinking "if it increased this much in the last ten years then it'll increase by the same factor again".
Also, as far as this being a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, I think people are looking at it the wrong way. The problem here isn't the consumer's, it's the providers. The content providers want to stream everything so they're in total control of who's allowed to consume what content, and when. Why can't I download movies to keep in the UK for my tablet? Every time I look they direct me to some streaming page like Netflix. That's not much good if I'm on a plane with no wi-fi is it? I'm getting absolutely sick of this cloud crap and being treated like a criminal despite wanting to pay legitimately for content that I can use whenever I want.
But hey, 10-15 years. More than enough time to squeeze out a platform that happily provides games to its customers, whether they are connected to the internet or not. No problem, right?
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Dwayne Wright on 24th September 2012 12:30pm
In town I get 60Mb/s from Virgin at £20 with 30ms ping times.
At work I get 2ms ping times. But you say what about people on in towns.
BT is trailing all fibre exchanges at the moment. I understand that the plan is that as a subscriber all you
will get is a fibre connection for all services, voice and data. If the trails go well they will
replace the copper cables with fibre. Bearing in mind that with the cost of copper soon it
will be cost effective to remove the copper and sell it to pay the costs of installing the fibre.
See http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2012/03/bt-selects-deddington-uk-for-its-first-fibre-only-broadband-and-phone-trial.html
As for 1Gb/s "in a few years" look at https://fiber.google.com/about/ where for $70/month you can get 1Gb/s now
if you live in Kansas.
Secondly, taking a larger country that has smaller, more densely formed population centres than another that has its population more evenly spread out and then only comparing land mass is disingenuous.
I have had a good run and loads of memories, and maybe in the 5th year of the Wii U I may buy it because of situations in my life right now I can't commit to the Wii U at the moment.
But if cloud gaming is the thing of the future, then maybe when I move into a new house and have more loungeroom space for consoles I may be a retro console collector collecting things before the cloud days.