Slashdot Mirror


The Tiny Console Killers Taking On the PS4 and Xbox 720

An anonymous reader writes "As the next generation of consoles looms, we've seen a growing trend towards low price, compact alternatives such as the Ouya and GameStick, many of which run on the Android mobile platform. But this article on the trend raises a very good point: through the use of cloud computing and game streaming technology, it's entirely possible these machines will be able to keep pace with the powerhouse technology inside the Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox 720, and perhaps even overtake them. After all, if these little boxes can simply stream from powerful servers, how can the stalwarts of gaming keep up?"

45 of 349 comments (clear)

  1. how can the stalwarts of gaming keep up? by Bananatree3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Rural areas. Dialup and satellite internet suck in this application. 3G? Unless one has a large data cap or uses their console infrequently.

    1. Re:how can the stalwarts of gaming keep up? by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 3, Insightful

      By focusing on profitability and not marketshare.

      Sell enough to a dedicated group of people with good internet access and ensure that your profit center IS the console and you're set.

      Although that GameStick controller looks simply awful. I wish they built a better joypad.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    2. Re:how can the stalwarts of gaming keep up? by rolfwind · · Score: 3, Informative

      The summary doesn't make it clear but what the article is talking about is streaming from your own more powerful PC via Wi-Fi, which apparently one of the products has the ability to do so.

      Now I don't really buy into that as coinciding with what people want but at least the concept is plausible no matter where you are situated or your Internet situation. (Consoles usually stay at home as well).

    3. Re:how can the stalwarts of gaming keep up? by Pseudonym · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Rural areas. Dialup and satellite internet suck in this application.

      You already need decent broadband on current consoles for some DRM-laden games.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    4. Re:how can the stalwarts of gaming keep up? by frovingslosh · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't forget bandwidth caps on wired Internet "services", such as that sold to you by the good people at AT&T. The little old lady next door already got hit with huge overages because she likes to watch netflix, I can imagine how bad the overages would be if I was playing a high resolution game for similar amounts each month. And I also don't believe that a "cloud based system" will ever be able to generate as good of quality of game video and then deliver it with as low of latency as a system co-located with the user.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    5. Re:how can the stalwarts of gaming keep up? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      And don't forget Blizzard's innovative Massively Singleplayer Online RPG experience in the latest iteration of the Diablo franchise...

    6. Re:how can the stalwarts of gaming keep up? by cheesybagel · · Score: 2
      Larry Ellison wants his NetPC back. Remember that one? I agree that streamed games are still not a viable option for a lot of people.

      These consoles are interesting in that they leverage cell phone chips to compete with current consoles. Yes current console specs are getting to be that long in the tooth.

    7. Re:how can the stalwarts of gaming keep up? by RoboJ1M · · Score: 2

      Backward compatibility

    8. Re:how can the stalwarts of gaming keep up? by Sigg3.net · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Rural areas. Dialup and satellite internet suck in this application.

      You already need decent broadband on current consoles for some DRM-laden games.

      And SSH into girlfriend's PC to kill Transmission (or equivalent).
        Guns don't kill people. Lag kills people.

  2. simply stream from powerful servers by Osgeld · · Score: 4, Insightful

    yea you know what, my shitty internet has trouble streaming from youtube sometimes

    1. Re:simply stream from powerful servers by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      They don't want you to know this; but the various 'cloud gaming' startups are actually part of an attempt to uncover enough precogs to set up a practical precrime unit.

      With latency what it is, only limited precognition allows the player to perform as well as they would locally. With online leaderboards, it becomes a relatively simple matter to screen for players who play more effectively than the limitations of the game would ordinarily allow.

    2. Re:simply stream from powerful servers by 228e2 · · Score: 2

      Why don't you have a seat over here.

      --
      Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
  3. They will fail because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most people don't have fast enough internet to stream high quality without lag and a lot of people have data caps. If you can't even stream a Netflix movie without it buffering all the time or using up your data how are you supposed to game for hours on end?

    1. Re:They will fail because by skids · · Score: 5, Funny

      How can you say this!? It's Cloud! And Streaming! I bet they've even got plans for BYOD, VirtualSomething YetAnotherSomethingOverIP and CrowdSourcing.

    2. Re:They will fail because by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 4, Funny

      And it's social! Like AIDS!

  4. latency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We've talked about this a thousand times. After your normal input lag gets sent to a server, the video gets rendered and sent back, your latency is so bad that twitchy games are unplayable. I'm sure it would work fine for slow-paced games, but then... what do you need the server for?

    1. Re:latency by TheLink · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The sad thing about latency is the networking bunch may do their jobs fairly well but the input/output hardware and software people often don't or can't.

      So each router hop on the internet might only take 1ms or less whereas a mouse button click or keyboard key press might take 16 milliseconds (debouncing etc) and a crap TV might take another 16-50 milliseconds or even more.

      Of course if you're unlucky to be an ocean or two away from the servers your ping goes up by 200 milliseconds or more. But if you're not, don't be surprised how little latency might be added by the network and server.

      For instance my ping to www.google.com is coming back within 5 milliseconds.

      But if the game server and client bunch leave Nagling on that often adds another semi-random 200+ milliseconds. I personally think Nagling belongs in the past and no longer should be enabled by default - causes more problems than it solves. It is a kludge that does something at the network layer that should more properly be done at the application layer.

      --
    2. Re:latency by Iceykitsune · · Score: 4, Insightful

      i seem to have beaten borderlands just fine over onlive.

      --
      GENERATION 24: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
    3. Re:latency by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Informative

      You need to add data transmission time to the network latency. You need to wait for an entire screen to be transferred before it can be displayed. If it's compressed, there's latency in the compression too. That's why VOIP codecs sacrifice quality for latency, waiting for 1152 samples before encoding an MP3 frame takes too long.

    4. Re:latency by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3

      Trouble is, unless you've got a decent internet connection(preferrably uncapped, if you plan on doing much 'cloud' gaming), the effective latency is a combination of your basic ping time and the time to transfer whatever data are needed to paint the next frame of video. Your keystrokes going out aren't likely to be all that much bigger than an ICMP packet; but unless you can pull a good 10Mb/s down or better you'll be choosing between pixel soup and slideshow mode...

    5. Re:latency by StarWreck · · Score: 5, Informative

      1ms?!? What fantasy world are you living in? 1ms is what you'll get between 2 computers on your own home LAN. You're not going to get as good as 1ms from your own ISP.

      --
      ... and in the DRM, bind them.
    6. Re:latency by TheLink · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I said: "EACH router hop on the internet might only take 1ms"
      And: "my ping to www.google.com is coming back within 5 milliseconds."

      So go figure what fantasy world I live in. Seems pretty real to me. Not everyone uses AOL or whatever you are using.

      See also:
      Tracing route to www.google.com 74.125.135.106
      over a maximum of 30 hops:

          1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms redacted
          2 <1 ms 1 ms 1 ms redacted
          3 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms redacted
          4 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms redacted
          5 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 211.25.27.81
          6 2 ms 1 ms 1 ms 203.121.17.2
          7 3 ms 5 ms 4 ms 211.25.27.122
          8 8 ms 7 ms 8 ms 223.28.2.53
          9 4 ms 4 ms 3 ms 223.28.2.70
        10 4 ms 4 ms 4 ms 211.25.221.2
        11 4 ms 5 ms 5 ms 209.85.242.246
        12 5 ms x 5 ms 209.85.250.237
        13 x x x Request timed out.
        14 5 ms 5 ms 4 ms 74.125.135.106

      Trace complete.

      You can try that yourself and see the ping differences between hops, there will be some anomalies as in mine due to asymmetric routing (packets taking a different path back). Your first hop might be high latency if you are using a 56k or ADSL modem, but the other hops might only have a diff of a few milliseconds.

      --
    7. Re:latency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The closest IP to your endpoint which you listed is 211.25.27.81 Which is located in Australia (South Brisbane specifically) according to whois records.
      I just ran a traceroute from the Primus Telecom looking glass server in Brisbane, and you're topping 140ms. A trace from Telstra's server in Melbourne shows 134ms right now.

      I'm not familiar with all the companies involved who show up in your specific trace path, but I have a suspicion your ISP has a direct peering circuit with Google reserved just for Google-bound traffic. Try popping some traces to blizzard's servers, etc. and see how they stack up.

      Point being that the trace you posted is highly abnormal and not what most people experience over the general internet. If these companies have any hope of "taking on" the big console makers they are going to have to put a shitload of money into localized servers all over the planet, and probably will have to setup direct peering relationships with ISP's as well. That's not cheap, so unless they are planning on only competing in dense population areas, I just don't see this working out well for them.

    8. Re:latency by TheLink · · Score: 2

      I believe OP is talking about:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnLive
      https://www.onlive.com/launch/trial/borderlands
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qD8KOcre7w

      In which case it's rendered on the server.

      The problem I see is the speed of light is too slow, so the latency can be too high for many customers unless such services locate their servers around the world.

      --
  5. Streamed Games are Awful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bandwidth use, control lag etc.

    A 6 year old kid can notice the lag in Lego Batman when used on a Smart TV not in Game mode and be irritated by it.

    Even under the best conditions the lag by the 'games streamed entirely from servers' is worse.

    I'd accept PS1 era graphics and tight controls over 'real-life' quality streamed graphics and horrible lag.

  6. I don't understand by TheGoodNamesWereGone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The console-killer always has been the good old PC. A reasonably specced-out PC with a mid-range graphics card is far, far better than any console. But nobody listens to me. Nobody loves me.

    1. Re:I don't understand by mjwx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The console-killer always has been the good old PC. A reasonably specced-out PC with a mid-range graphics card is far, far better than any console. But nobody listens to me.

      Well yes and no.

      You may not be old enough to remember but back before the Playstation and Xbox PC-pretenders turned up consoles were about casual, accessible games like Mario Kart. PC's were about in depth games, shooters like Doom and adventure games like Star Control 2. Then the PS/XB pretenders came a long and pretended they could be "hardcore" gaming machines. This was until Nintendo released the Wii and proved that consoles were about casual, accessible games like Mario Kart and made money hand over fist whilst it took the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 half a decade to achieve profitability (the PS3 still hasn't recouped it's investment yet).

      Now mobile is muscling in on the casual game and this is where the "traditional" console is doomed. Casual audiences will be attracted to the cheapness, ease of use and multiplayer capabilities of the tablet-consoles (Tabsoles, Conslets?) and "hardcore" games will come home, back to the PC.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    2. Re:I don't understand by failedlogic · · Score: 2

      It used to be though to get the reasonably specced PC you had to spend $800 - 1000. When the PS3 / X360 and before their release that was true. $300 (or whatever it was) for a sound card just to place Wing Commander 2 with voice pack ..... ah the memories

      I'm a PS3 owner because of the Blu-Ray player, and I'm a fan of a few Sony exclusive game franchises.

      I think most people buy platform X or Y not on technical merits but on system-exclusive games. If the next-gen don't have any system exclusives that are worth buying the console for, then PS4 and 720 have something to worry about.

    3. Re:I don't understand by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Consoles were also arcade-at-home devices. The funny controllers (joysticks, more than 2 buttons), and boxes with graphics that rivaled the arcade machines.

    4. Re:I don't understand by mjwx · · Score: 2

      Consoles were also arcade-at-home devices. The funny controllers (joysticks, more than 2 buttons), and boxes with graphics that rivaled the arcade machines.

      Exactly, the casual market grew out of the kinds of people who went to arcades. This is why old acrade games like Glaga, Tetris and Street Fighter remain console favourites.

      And there's nothing wrong with that.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    5. Re:I don't understand by samkass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The console-killer always has been the good old PC. A reasonably specced-out PC with a mid-range graphics card is far, far better than any console. But nobody listens to me. Nobody loves me.

      The console killer was the iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad, etc. Apple sells as many iDevices each year than all the consoles that have ever been made, and has more games available in the App Store for its platform than for all consoles that have ever existed combined. They just announced their 40 billionth unique (non-upgrade, non-redownload) app sale, most of them games. Consoles and PC game rigs are both niches now.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    6. Re:I don't understand by exomondo · · Score: 2

      Now mobile is muscling in on the casual game and this is where the "traditional" console is doomed. Casual audiences will be attracted to the cheapness, ease of use and multiplayer capabilities of the tablet-consoles (Tabsoles, Conslets?) and "hardcore" games will come home, back to the PC.

      I've got a PC (which, thanks to my job is kept pretty up to date with eng samples from intel, amd and nvidia) and I've got an XBox and PS3, i play games on all of them (probably the ps3 not as much mainly because i prefer the xbox controller) and I don't see any reason why I would abandon the consoles to play on the PC exclusively even though it is a pretty decent PC. They all have their place.

      I don't have a Wii because I'm not much into those sorts of games - I have a Kinect and I'm not really a fan of that either - and the same goes for tablets and smartphones, sure these 'Tiny Consoles' replace casual gaming in that sense but outside of casual gaming I see no reason I would restrict myself to just the PC.

    7. Re:I don't understand by exomondo · · Score: 2

      And the best selling game for the PC? The Sims 2! The second best selling game for the PC? The Sims! Not something I would consider to be 'hardcore' gaming titles. The PC looks a lot more casual gaming than consoles, certainly don't see anything to suggest consoles are more casual-gaming focussed.

    8. Re:I don't understand by Hatta · · Score: 2

      There are so many deficencies with console hardware it's not funny.

      What makes you think you need powerful hardware to make a good game?

      This is why there still isn't a successful strategy game on consoles.

      Played Advance Wars? It may not be everyones favorite game, but it's one of the best turn based strategy games I've played. Strategy RPGs like Tactics Ogre or Fire Emblem work very well on consoles too.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    9. Re:I don't understand by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 2

      "Not as complex" isn't the same as "Casual."

      Nice try trying to shoehorn Dragon Quest into the same game category as Bejewelled or Peggle.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  7. Wrong by BitZtream · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They won't keep up.

    Mommy may want to buy some shitty Ouya console cause its cheap, but little Jimmy won't want to play this shitty half assed games on it.

    Seriously, do you think people WANT to phone quality graphics on a 60" TV? No, they don't even want to see it on a 15" laptop.

    Anyone who thinks streamed games have chance hasn't played a game. Even for turn based games, lag that is noticeable sucks ass, and no ones internet is lag free all the time. Even if the last mile doesnt' lag, there are plenty of other hops to cause problems and introduce lag.

    Consoles, current or next gen, have no worries at all about being beat out by a Gamestick or Ouya console, local or streamed. Anyone who thinks this is utterly disconnected from reality.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:Wrong by gman003 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Fact:

      The "winner" of at least the last three console wars was the cheapest console.

      The Wii outsold the Xbox 360 and the PS3. At some points it was outselling them *combined*, until Microsoft and Sony dropped their prices.

      The PS2 outsold the Gamecube, Xbox and Dreamcast, which is generally credited to a) it being a cheaper DVD player than many dedicated DVD players, b) massive third-party support, itself caused by c) its low price.

      The PS1 outsold the N64 and Saturn. Even though the N64 was slightly cheaper, it was also two years late, and had lower TCO since the games were CD-based, not cartridge-based. And don't even bring up the 3DO.

      Ouya, Gamestick, Piston, Shield, and all the other microconsoles... I'm not worried that the graphics will hold them back (well, maybe Gamestick). The thing that's more likely to keep them from succeeding is a small game library. Ouya is close enough to many common Android tablets that it should be fine. Shield seems almost like a fancy demo for Nvidia's new hardware, so I doubt they'd panic if it flops. Piston (and the other Steamboxen) have one publisher behind them, which is at least enough to survive in the marketplace (ain't that right, Nintendo?).

  8. GameStick by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

    They claim one of their selling points is the large amount of existing Android games available.

    Can someone tell me how I'm going to play a touch-screen based game on a controller based TV console?

    1. Re:GameStick by bfandreas · · Score: 2

      Easily. The better ones already have controller support. I've hooked up a PS3 controller to my android tablet. All you need is Bluetooth or USB.
      Also there is DosBox + Bluetooth mouse for your Master of Magic and Dungeon Keeper needs.
      And with the newly announced SoC you can have independent display on your tablet and your HDMI connected viewing screen. Which sounds awefully like that new Nintendo thing.
      All the standard stuff has already been there for some time.
      Fun fact: I even give presentations with my tablet hooked up to an HDMI projector and control it with a PS3 controller. Afterwards I usually get asked by members of the audience where they can get all that stuff. simple: from a shop. As long as it doesn't have an Apple logo on the outside, of course.
      It is iApple stuff that's left out in the rain. They don't do any of those. What with no emulators and non-standard connections and such.

      Still: Caution! Google inside.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
  9. Cloud gaming - the next emperor's new clothes by rs1n · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Even with a cloud network that comes equipped with millions of graphics cards, I just don't see how they are going to get around the bandwidth bottleneck. Unless the only games being offered are board games, I just don't see how anything like an FPS being played via cloud computing due to obvious things like: 1. bandwidth needed to download the images to update the gamer's display 2. network latency causing input delays Even with great compression algorithms, you're still looking at a problem of somehow refreshing the display at a minimum of 30 fps. I cannot help but speculate you would need either large bandwidth with low latency or special hardware to uncompress the image stream. But the most important question is, what the hell happens when either the cloud is down, or when you lose your internet connection?

  10. "rural" = anything but FIOS by Bananatree3 · · Score: 2

    just sayin'

  11. Worst idea ever by slashmydots · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So it's like the current games but with 100x more financial reason to shut down the multiplayer servers after a couple years. That sounds like a great idea! Just ask PC gamers how much they love that.

  12. Escalation by fredprado · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That is one of the most stupid applications for cloud computing. Centralizing processor hungry processes. Can anyone take a guess how badly it will become as this escalates?

    1. Re:Escalation by slashmydots · · Score: 2

      Considering how game makers dump servers ASAP when a game's sales stop, I would say it'd do quite the opposite of escalate.

  13. Re:That's not how you do that. by jellomizer · · Score: 2

    Technically if you had enough CPU power and bandwidth to get a near real time video feed. So where you send you often 1 byte command and then you get your updated screen withing a human response level of time 1/120 of a second. Then you can stream CPU power. As all the hard work of game physics, graphics rendering... Can be done else were.

    We do not have such bandwidth (affordable) yet for this, but it could happen.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.