I thought OnLive and other thin client gaming services took a shot at latency, made some great achievements, but hit walls.[1-4] It seems hard to put a few miles between the game and the screen and keep response times natural.
Maybe 99.9% of computing doesn't need latency as low as FPS and fighters though. Maybe this is just taking OnLive[5] tech and making a really smooth remote desktop out of it. If so, I guess this kind of a shoot for the stars, land on the moon technology. I guess that's still pretty cool.
Maybe 99.9% of computing doesn't need latency as low as FPS and fighters though. Maybe this is just taking OnLive[5] tech and making a really smooth remote desktop out of it. If so, I guess this kind of a shoot for the stars, land on the moon technology. I guess that's still pretty cool.
[1] http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-onlive-lag-... [2] http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-face-off-ga... [3] http://www.iis.sinica.edu.tw/~swc/onlive/onlive.html [4] http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-onlive-boos... [5] Or StreamMyGame or GaiKai or others. I gather there were a few different approaches to the problem, involving debates about whether datacenter placement or higher framerate rendering were more important. UPDATE: Ooh, DTE, I'd be really curious which of those approaches you thought were failures, assuming you studied competing services, or if you just harvested a few ideas from everybody.