Holy poop?

[collinE]

Aside from lag, I'm curious how it'll work. Literally.

So your computer just streams it, but then it is really running from another computer? so if you have millions of people, or tens of millions for multiple games, then you need that many computers running? Is a company going to have a building with tons of computers running crysis? That's quite the investment.

Maybe they could run it in a place that's cold and then blow the hot air from the computers to the townspeople to keep them warm.

[Kurt_]

It's probably very similar to how half-life games work, but it'll load the next level in the background of the current level with your free bandwidth.

[eagle5953]

I'm calling it now - this will be an interesting footnote on Wikipedia some day, nothing more.

[jleemero]

It's probably very similar to how half-life games work, but it'll load the next level in the background of the current level with your free bandwidth.

No no, you see, this is STREAMING VIDEO.

The games don't even run on your system.

It runs elsewhere, and streams the video in real-time to your computer.


Really cool idea.
Complete bandwidth killer, no doubt.

[XCVG]

Couldn't I just watch a slow YouTube video of say, Crysis, and mash random keys while swirling around my mouse and have pretty much the same effect?

[jjhammerstein]

I don't think the bandwidth would be excessive at all.

People keep saying it will be, but it really won't be much higher than standard online gaming, if you turn the graphics way down.

[jleemero]

I don't think the bandwidth would be excessive at all.

People keep saying it will be, but it really won't be much higher than standard online gaming, if you turn the graphics way down.

"Decent" video == 900k/s
Team Fortress 2 == 110k/s on average.

[jjhammerstein]

I can settle for less than decent. XD
Wow, TF2 is that little? I'm surprised. I would have expected somewhere around 1Mbs.

[bicostp]

Um, if it's streaming video, there won't be a bandwidth difference between playing Crysis cranked up to Enthusiast and playing it on Omgmycomputersucks Low. Where do you get 110k/sec from for TF2? ANY game would look like garbage at that bitrate, even Super Mario Bros.

[jleemero]

I can settle for less than decent. XD
Wow, TF2 is that little? I'm surprised. I would have expected somewhere around 1Mbs.

Good lord no!

Even older games could handle low-speed connections.
The more that's handled server-side the better.

Even good-ol' Tribes 2, I played it on BAD DSL. (400kbit)

Valve is really good about doing as little as is needed, nothing "extra" when it comes to this sort of thing.
In TF2, I max out at around 140k/s, I don't think I've ever broken that.

Where do you get 110k/sec from for TF2? ANY game would look like garbage at that bitrate, even Super Mario Bros.

That's not video I run it at 1680x1050 with all maxed out settings. (Except, just normal 16xAA, not QSAA or whatever it's called )
That's the bandwidth it utilizes when you play.
I monitor my internet constantly, and I pull anywhere from 80k/s to 140k/s when playing.

[XCVG]

This service uses STREAMING VIDEO. It also sends control commands. This WILL be laggy.

[jleemero]

This service uses STREAMING VIDEO. It also sends control commands. This WILL be laggy.

That's kind of my point

Games use very little bandwidth.
Video uses a lot.

This is video, it will use a LOT.

[Black Six]

Yeah, streaming video versus normal multiplayer is like a hi-res PNG is to a vector image. The former takes up a LOT more space and needs a LOT more bandwidth. I don't see how this is going to work.

[gamecube6]

What?

The Phantom realized?

Crap, you beat me to it

[grossaffe]

supposedly they have an algorithm for more efficient video transmission.

either way, this would be much cooler to be able to purchase the software to install on your own server. run games off of your server through a portable netbook or something.