Iga_Bobovic said:

P.S. Steel you cum bucket, why have you not responded? You wanted me to write it down and now you just ignore it!

I was aghast by your last bullet point.

Iga_Bobovic said:

SteelAttack said:

Iga_Bobovic said:

P.S. Steel you cum bucket, why have you not responded? You wanted me to write it down and now you just ignore it!

I was aghast by your last bullet point.

But what do you think of the rest?

Unlikely. Sounds too much of a hassle, and too complex. You want to have a centralized unit to handle the bulk of processing and graphic muscle, and have dedicated gaming hardware as well. It's a safe bet that processing power will continue to increase exponentially as time goes by, but I dunno if what you said will ever be viable.

Iga_Bobovic said:

Actually your point goes double for Onlive. Heh, I guess in a few years PC will be powerfull enough to handle all the gaming needs we need. They already showed GPU's that have near photorealistic graphics a few months ago.

The neural net thing is already used in some cases between universities. Skynet is coming, better get ready

I'm no OnLive zealot. I acknowledge its technical hurdles, and realize it's highly unlikely it will overcome them all in its current incarnation. However, they need to solve issues that are far more manageable than your Skynet wannabe.

SteelAttack said:

Iga_Bobovic said:

Actually your point goes double for Onlive. Heh, I guess in a few years PC will be powerfull enough to handle all the gaming needs we need. They already showed GPU's that have near photorealistic graphics a few months ago.

The neural net thing is already used in some cases between universities. Skynet is coming, better get ready

I'm no OnLive zealot. I acknowledge its technical hurdles, and realize it's highly unlikely it will overcome them all in its current incarnation. However, they need to solve issues that are far more manageable than your Skynet wannabe.

 So your saying that having one huge computer per let say 100 homes, is more feasible than 1 computer per home? 

The skynet idea was just for giggles, I do not think it will be needed for gaming. 

SteelAttack said:

Iga_Bobovic said:

So your saying that having one huge computer per let say 100 homes, is more feasible than 1 computer per home?

The skynet idea was just for giggles, I do not think it will be needed for gaming.

Your penis is for giggles.

Remember this thing is being developed only with gaming in mind. From that standpoint, I'd say yes. One central graphic/`processing unit should be enough to stream data to thousands of homes, the technology is already available, unfortunately, the pipes aren't fat enough. They need to solve the technical issue of streaming data at enough speed to make latency tolerable enough to ensure a proper gaming experience. It's no small feat.

You are talking about a broader picture. A central home unit that controls everything from washing machines to TV sets to gaming devices to room temperatures. Its scope is way broader, but its complexity is also higher.

 Yes, but having it at your home eliminates the complexity of transferring data. They could also use the Onlive technology for tele-surgery (surgery from a big distance, wait you are a doctor, you should know that)

My problem with Onlive is that when it becomes worldwide viable, we will already have PC's that are more than enough for all our gaming needs. That's why I said 10 and 20 years for my idea. Besides if you have a rig that can run crisis on very high at 60+ frames per second, then Onlive is kinda useless. 

SteelAttack said:

Iga_Bobovic said:

Yes, but having it at your home eliminates the complexity of transferring data. They could also use the Onlive technology for tele-surgery (surgery from a big distance, wait you are a doctor, you should know that)

My problem with Onlive is that when it becomes worldwide viable, we will already have PC's that are more than enough for all our gaming needs. That's why I said 10 and 20 years for my idea. Besides if you have a rig that can run crisis on very high at 60+ frames per second, then Onlive is kinda useless.

Yeah, I fucking know what telesurgery is.

But how many PCs around the world could run Crysis at those settings? How many gamers have dedicated rigs powerful enough to handle that? These guys are aiming to reach every fucking PC or Mac or TV with internet access. You are talking about a potential market of hundreds of millions of users. In a way, they are aiming for a paradigm shift like the one Nintendo accomplished with the DS/Wii duo.

Correct, if they can get it to work worlwide fast. If not than they could have a problem. Because make no mistake, PC technology is not stopping. Timing is everything.  

SteelAttack said:

Iga_Bobovic said:

Because make no mistake, PC technology is not stopping. Timing is everything.  

Did you have chinese food? You are rather deep as of lately.

 No, the Chinese restaurant we went to, has mice

P.S. do you know what this is?