Arstechnica has an article up which talks about the future of gaming and its relation to the “cloud”. It brings up some interesting points, and also include some feedback from Stardock’s own Brad Wardell.
"The concept of virtual storage is to let a player’s 'stuff' become ubiquitous—accessible from anywhere. This way, they don’t have to worry about a new machine losing their mods or saved games or other key data," Stardock CEO and president Brad Wardell told Ars. "I am pretty convinced that it is going to become the dominant way for games to deal with transient data. When implemented correctly—that is, store it locally in the event the user loses 'Net access or the service is down, and store it on the cloud when possible—you end up with a much better customer experience while decreasing the support costs for the developer."
Read the full article over at Ars!
It's going to happen, but it's going to be a while. Right now, there needs to be a machine for every game hosted. The physical resources just aren't there yet.
It's interesting to see the contradictions in the quote above.
Yess, it would be accessible from anywhere, but take my copy of Call of Duty Modern warfare 2 as an example. I may be able to install this game on my computer from any internet connection I can connect to but I can still only play it on my computer. I can't, say, get on a computer somewhere else around the world and play COD MW2 on it because that would be breaching the copyright terms or something like that. It's interesting that cloud computer is meant to provide access anywhere but in many cases this access can only be done if you carry your computer everywhere with you. I don't see myself carrying a PC tower and 19 inch monitor with me everywhere. You can thank game and software makers for wanting to make a buck out of every copy of their software and game even if played by the same person on different PCs. I'm glad this does not apply to DVDs. I would hate to have to buy 3 copies of Kung Fu Panda, one for each DVD player in the house.
Ironically many (eventually all) video game makers are turning to "always on" DRM where without Internet access one can't even play single player mode on games. This is the single dumbest idea I have ever seen. The purpose of multiplayer was to play against others "online". Who's idiotic idea was it to tie in the single player mode to Internet access? I can understand wanting to upload ones progress for back-up purposes or for sharing, but that can be done when a connection is found, why tie in the ability to play the single player mode to needing the Internet just to play something that is played locally by yourself?
Cloud computing and gaming can be a great combination, but only when it doesn't infringe on the players ability to play the game at any time with or without an Internet connection.
You know what I see when I see or hear of "Cloud Gaming" ? Just another way for companies to "police" the internet. I hope people get tired of this fast and it dies. I SERIOUSLY hope this isn't the future of computer gaming. If it is I may end up going over to totally Indie games and underground software, not to mention console gaming.
Next they'll be using this to I.D. people online. Then the forms of discrimination will come into play sooner or later...
If I want to be a part of a "Cloud" network or service they should limit it to services like "OnLive" which customers will pay a subscription fee for. If I'm not signing up for something like that then I DO NOT want "Cloud Gaming" to be the only viable way I can play games online.
Trust me, unless you've got more money then you'll ever need to throw away on this so you can keep gaming, you need to stand up and tell companies you DON'T want this. Sooner or later this is going to destroy any sense that you "Own" the games you buy. Get ready everyone, the whole world is going PAY TO PLAY on a "Rent it while you play it" plan!!!
*shakes head*......think about it people.....
I said, Hey! You! Get off of my cloud !
Sadly, people would rather let someone else take care of it rather than worry about it themselves.
Raven X, I don't understand your analysis. This is basically just a server system for using the computing of other machines to run your games. You would still use the "steam or impulse" type game license control.
On the contrary. With virtual machines you can have many many games on a single piece of physical hardware.
In Elemental, players won't host their own games. They'll play on dedicated servers set up by us (usually) or on custom servers set up by the community.
I agree. It's a terrible idea because not just because it screws legitimate customers but also because it turns the publisher into a 24/7 service provider without the benefit of a monthly subscription. It's insane.
I appreciate the distinction here, he sure seems to have his finger on the pulse of the game industry.
RE: "ars technica and cloud gaming," I don't think marketers will ever give up on "thin client computing," despite not really being in the interest of the consumer* to move to a utility-based system. If you could generate all the power your house needed for a cheap one time investment, why would you pay every month to a utility company? I do not understand why there is this cultural dichotomy where we so strongly desire to get "off the grid," for so many things, while some of us are trying to move everything "onto the grid."
* (often good for business, though)
Until everyone has reliable fast internet access I don't see it. Where I live if I moved 2 miles in any direction I would be stuck on dialup. Where I lived before this(and the area my Mom still lives) the best you can get is a 28K unstable as hell connection. They still have a long way to go to consider America connected enough for this to work. That's just an overall problem that most can agree on(at least those in these areas), but there is a lot of personal reasons I would never agree with such a setup as well.
Frogboy, I'm disappointed that someone in your position wouldn't research before responding. Read: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/02/pl_games_cloud/
I dread cloud gaming. All it seems to be is an excuse for ridiculously draconian DRM with virtually no benefit. It's a minor inconvenience for me to copy save game files from one machine to another, and at the moment that seems to be the only actual benefit of cloud gaming.
If there is one thing I like about Stardock is that I can use their software without the worries of needing to be connected to the internet to use them. You're concept of DRM is very different and more focused on helping the consumers rather than punishing them because of those who would steal the software.
As a game, I love COD MW2, it's just as good if not better than the rest of the series, but it's a shame they chose to eliminate dedicated servers. This game has the potential for amazing mods but the lack of dedicated servers killed this. Instead they created an imaginary system where IWNet and VAC were suppose to eliminate ping problems, hackers and the issue of ranked players playing against what are called noobs. My experience? Here's is what I have sen so far:
Ping problem: IWNet is suppose to pick the player with the best ping to host the game but we are not sure how the system determines that considering more often than not the host will have a terrible ping and everyone else but the host will have lag. Not exactly a problem solver, more often then not we either can't get in a game or get kicked due to the host's bad ping.
hackers: If anything MW2 has become a hackers paradise. The odds of playing in a game without hackers is probably the same as winning the lotto. The saddest part is that these hackers don't even pretend to hide it. As a matter of fact they are more than willing to let everyone know they are hacking by saying it, admiting it when accused and even putting it in their names. What does IWNet and VAC do about it? As far as I can see not a damn thing. Hell they won't even acknowledge those who complain in the various forums about the number of hackers. The biggest belief is that Infinity Ward is more interested in their xBox customers (considering a new map pack was recently created just for them with no date for a PS3 or PC release), their bread and butter. So for the moment hackers are running the MW2 world.
Ranked vs non-ranked - one of the biggest cries as to why IW eliminated dedicated servers. Supposely some players were mad that they had to play against better players so they wanted a way to play against more even players. Hackers aside, it seems that this does not seem to work either as more often than not I get stuck with the worst players in the game; even funnier they all end up on the same team. How does IWNet pick teams anyways? I doubt it's random.
Basically, what could have been the best game ever has eventually turned into a nightmare we paid $60 for. My nly hope is that somewhere along the line IW gives in and either does something about these hackers or opens the game to allow dedicated servers. Otherwise I can only see 2 outcomes for future IW based COD games:
They either don't seel games or people will be stupid enough to buy another game just like this one. I for one will never do this again. MW2 is a great game but ti's flaws will determine Steam and IW's future when it comes to my money.
@ ChuckCS
You should have been done with the COD series after the introduction of perks and killstreaks in COD4 (that's the last COD game I will ever have played). Rewarding people for camping and thinking only of their own KDR is a the best way to kill teamplay. Plus the stupid weapon perks that allow for (no....encourage even) frankenstein weapon configs etc. is just lame.
I chose Battlefield Bad Company 2 and couldn't be happier at having spent my money there instead. Sure there is currently a lack of MP map selection, but the destruction 2.0 of anything/everything on a map in brick-by-brick fashion ensures a fresh taste each time you play, not to mention the tactical options that are constantly changing because of it (eg. someone camping in a building? bring the thing down around his ears and see the camper fail...lol)
back on topic......
Cloud computing (not only gaming) is the way to go. Everyone already WANTS to be connected 24/7 I just see a bunch of whiners complaining about "big brother" or "shitty connections". Either way, get over it........the complainers/naysayers are in the minority. All 3 of my children would like nothing better than to be "plugged-in" 24/7 so that is exactly what they will get. The world will give this generation (and the next) exactly what it wants (not exactly what my wife and I would want for our kids......but it's the way of the world these days).
Between facebook, twitter, im, skype and various other media portals I have better tracking/access of my children than if I shoved a GPS tracker up their asses and followed them around. It's only us "old farts" who have an issue with regard to privacy of our daily lives, this generation simply doesn't care.
Cloud storage for preferences and saved games:
Steam does it, and does it well.
Cloud for actually running games a la OnLive:
Not yet possible because of lack of internet density (to stream the games), in addition to physical capabilities. There is no cloud computing for GPUs yet. Unless gaming moves away from GPU architecture, or a gaming centric cloud GPU solution is developed, you need one GPU for every session. Gaming can easily tie up 1-3 whole CPUs, making cloud gaming extremely cost prohibitive. Not to mention, in the future, when Crysis 3 can eat up 4 GPUs and 10 CPUs, you'd run into the problem of restricting graphic options and such, so that the player will never get the full experience.
It's not the future of gaming or computing. Wily companies have been trying to sell us on the idea of having our computers connect to other computers to run everything on the client computer for several decades now, and have flopped incredibly.
Maybe not everyone here has been in IT long enough to remember each iteration, or the companies that have tried to deliver this vision and failed specatularly. Once, we called it "thin client" computing and tried to sell it to workplaces and home offices. Then we called it "grid" computing and tried to sell it to anybody. Now we call it cloud computing, and it's cool in that darpa-let's-build-an-aircraft-carrier-that-self-assembles-from-a-thousand-shipping-containers way, but it's basically the same paradigme rehashed over the past forty years: you purchase some commodity hardware that then hooks up to our expensive hardware which we bill you for.
The problem is that yesterday's expensive hardware is today's commodity. Cheaply available PCs glut the market and cut into the margins of expensive hardware, while creating a single point of failure (be it one machine or one internet connection or one supplier going bankrupt) and require excessive integration while precluding competitors and creating vendor-lockin. Any intelligent IT manager or director avoids this like the plague.
The result is that either the customer is forced to continue paying top-dollar for a service that steadily decreases in value as consumer PCs improve, or the company is forced to continually upgrade the entire infrastructure, rolling out expensive new hardware every year while paying growing bandwidth and electricity bills.
The above post was directed toward Raven X's post, which appears to have been deleted or removed, and the comments are not really applicable to saving a copy of your game states online, which could be fairly useful to people who change computers a lot.
Was I off topic? My bad, I tend to get carried away with topics and related topics I am passionate about. World At War wasn't that great but it wasn't too bad either. But I would have never known till I tried it myself. I was reluctant to get MW2 but I eventually bit the bullet and to be honest, except for the non-dedicated server issue (and the hacker issue a bit) I like the game and don't regret getting it. I think all those things you dislike about these games is what makes it better. I'm a sniper myself 80% of the time. The point of the game is to win, be it by running around with a knife, shooting the enemy from behind a concrete barrier or sniping them from across the map. The perks allow for the game to be expanded as oppose to just shooting the same old guns. It allows people to combine and test their skills with them, it's interesting to try to snipe a person running around with a running kit on their calss. It creates more of a challenge. Just shooting bullets get boring after a while, COD2 proves that. Once you face a person that never misses with the crappiest gun in the game and beats you you tend to wish you had a hack. perks give you hack like abilities without breaking the rules and giving everyone the same abilities.
I have Bad Company 2 but have not gotten tired of MW2 yet to dedicate time to it. I like the game as well just not right now.
I want to be connected 24/7 as well, what I don't want i to be dependent on it. Having a game stuck to the internet is a permanent thing but the Internet connection isn't. At anytime, anything from failure to pay the bills, damaged lines, faulty systems or natural disasters, can take the Internet away from us. Just like having the ability to listen to music without the need of a radio station or recording a TV show and watch it at your convenience; I want to be able to play my games (single player mode) without having to ask Steam or any other DRM type of service permission to play that which I paid for. And then they wonder why people pirate things. You don't tackle a problem by punishing the legitimate people.
Technology may be the future, but it isn't everything. All it takes is a power outage, be it by natural causes or human error, and we can go from technologically advanced to cowboys and indians in a flash. Downhill is a lot faster and eqasier than uphill.
I have a friend in Australia and I was wondering how this is supposed to work for those countries that the entire internet business model is monthly/GB limits. That also includes most satellite internet users here in the US as well. Thinking about it, I could only see this becoming the norm if/when most of the world has affordable, low ping(re: no satellite), unlimited internet. Hopefully that is what the world is heading towards. Highspeed wireless from pole to pole, but it's still a ways off.
Oh no not there is definitely a finite in this situation. We'll get 24/7 with spotty connections in the first month, random server issues and attacked for abou 2-3 years then they, the all wise and powerful publisher will pull the plug, tell the players to screw themselves and buy the new game. Yeah, I can't wait for this.
The idea is that everyone has high speed stable connections that is either free or affordable. Problem is that wont happen for a long time so cloud computer will be very limited even if started now.
Yea, I figure it to become a utility just like electricity instead of a luxury. Instead of tied to your address just tied to you and wherever you are you just login to the world wireless web. I guess then it will be more like a world wide shield instead of web since it will cover the earth solidly.
And then the robots take over and we all die.
That was the 80's. Now if the robots take over, they use us for fuel
That was the 90's. Now if the robots take over it's because one computer program got confused about the 3 laws.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
