Crytek believes streaming games will be viable ... in 2013

by JC Fletcher on Apr 2nd 2009 1:45PM

Crytek revealed that it has considered the possibility of a streaming game service like OnLive or Gaikai before, but abandoned the idea due to technological limitations. "We had our research in 2005 on this subject but we stopped around 2007 because we had doubts about economics of scale. But that was at a time when bandwidth was more expensive," CEO Cevat Yerli told GamesIndustry.biz.

High-speed connections have yet to be cheap or reliable enough to work, in Crytek's estimation: the company determined that a streaming service may be possible sometime between 2013 and 2015. This is also the approximate period in which most consumer PCs will begin to be able to run Crysis. Yerli said that such services must rely strongly on broadband providers.

"We're not involved [with OnLive], we just allowed Crysis to be tested on it," Yerli said. Publisher EA is behind the addition of Crysis Warhead to the service.

Source

Tags: crysis, crytek, gaikai, onlive, streaming

Reader Comments (61)

Yeah, with many areas monopolized by certain ISP's, there isn't enough healthy competition available to drive down prices and increase QoS. I'm looking at you Cox...

I'm sure there are many more than just Cox to finger-point at...Time-Warner, for example, is starting to expand their caps limits programs in places where there is little to no competition. Talk about stifling technology..

I highly doubt it - by then, OnLive will likely be only a distant memory. Among other things, we don't have the network infrastructure to support systems like this, and big carriers like AT&T and Verizon aren't interested in performing massive upgrades (at least, not in the U.S.).

Your are correct and correct, this is laughable and Crytek has gone bananas. I could understand if they said 2019 but 2013?

Hope this service will work with my Nokia N-Gage!

:P

2013. That's roughly five years...

Can I just point out:

2004: http://media.moddb.com/images/games/1/1/68/far_cry05.jpg

2009: http://www.breakitdownblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/crysis-warhead-screenshot-6.jpg

I'm pretty sure, Crytek know what they are doing when it comes to predicting new technologies. Besides, I could name another service that wasn't 'possible' before picking up five years later.

Shoot, I'd LOVE to have the option of Verizon FiOS. It would run circles around what's available in my area (Las Vegas mind you, not some small town out in the boonies).

@Buzz - you'd be right, if internet technologies were moving as fast as graphics technologies are. Thing is, they aren't. And it takes a lot more effort and money to improve the bandwidth of the cables in a building and on the street than it does to go out and get a new graphics card.

Las Vegas IS a small town in the boonies(Nevada?), its just chock full of Casinos, drugs, prostitution and occasional conventions for clothing, electronics etc.
LOL

*Badum-Tssh!*

"I'm pretty sure, Crytek know what they are doing when it comes to predicting new technologies. "

Perhaps, but they did a terrible job at predicting the market. Crytek's biggest mistake was not developing CryEngine2 in tandem with the consoles. Cryengine3 is their resolution to that, but it may be too little too late. Even Crysis on the PC has a reputation of requiring high specs to run it smoothly that they had to promote a decently priced PC setup capable to running at medium-high settings. Then there's companies like Valve who release their games built on an engine that's capable of being run on low-end systems, and with that success, and other companies follow their lead instead to capture more sales.

Well CryEngine 2 can run on lower end systems, of course it doesn't look as close to great as on Very High settings. The graphical differences between low and high settings in CryEngine 2 is much higher than in other engines like Valve's Source engine and the engine used in Call of Duty 4/5

Yeah, Crysis on my 6 year old PC is playable on low. I was impressed when i saw that it could actually run. Unfortunately, there's many people who still believe that it requires a $2000 PC.

What's the point of running it on low settings though? At that point, you might as well fire up your old N64 and play some Turok, because graphically, that's about all you're getting.

Negatron,

Vegas is neither small (2m people in the greater area) nor out in the boonies (4 hours away from LA). But your other points do stand ;)

"4 hours away from LA"

Fours hours is pretty long actually. If 4 hours is still not considered "in the boonies" then there aren't many boonies anywhere.

Vid,

Ok, I concede to the "out in the boonies" argument, lol. Still, it's a major US city that is world famous (or infamous) with around 50m tourists a year and not too long ago was America's fastest growing city (before the economic slowdown). I think it's a major enough market to warrant some competition.

Alright.

Aren't you the guy who claimed that PC gaming was dead anyway?

I don't see how this 'is ridiculous'. If done well, it could revolutionize or at least offer up a viable new method by which to game on the PC.

I'm not much of a PC gamer. I used to be, you know, the kind of kid who wanted the latest tech in his rig, but that stopped when I got into console gaming. With that said, my computer today isn't that powerful. I'm no longer all about supa tech, either. With that said, so long as there's no noticeable lag, I'd definitely be down for something like this. Even if there's a bit of visible artifacting (it's been said that there isn't) or if I have to play games at a lower resolution to support my internet connection, it's definitely a cool idea and I'd be much quicker to jump on that than replace my entire PC so that I can play the new games that hit it.

I don't see why you folks have to be so skeptical. If it fails, it fails. If it works, though, that'll be pretty cool, too. Can't believe we have idiots who want to see this fail... will it hurt ya if it doesn't?

Note: they didn't say it was technically impossible like other people are saying, just not feasible given the availability of bandwidth and broadband connections.

Anyone who said it was technically impossible is a moron. They've already demonstrated it and a number of large production studios have signed on. What everyone has been saying is that it is not possible to deliver quality service in a real environment.

And I've been saying that they'd have a real hard time competing with console costs over say 5 years.

"Note: they didn't say it was technically impossible like other people are saying, just not feasible given the availability of bandwidth and broadband connections."

Aren't those two things the same thing?

He means possible from Crytek's side, with an issue of server stability and whatnot.

Maybe. Just maybe. But I think the quality of gaming will continue to increase over the years, presenting a moving target. By the time gaming is read to provide what we're used to today, we'll all be used to 1920x1080x60fps. And that'll take a few more years of bandwidth improvements and better compression chips to catch up with.

And then there's the problem that latency doesn't go down over time.

Well, when we invent time machines, we can have your commands being sent back in time by half a second, to counteract the half-second lag.

100fps actually

But how is this service supposed to survive when the cost of a console over 5 years is less than $10 per month? And next-gen consoles provide other functions other than just playing games. They're basically media centers.

So, really this OnLive service can only impact PC gaming where costs to upgrade dwarf the cost of consoles.

I'm very much considering this. I have a 80/80 mb connection so my broadband should not be the problem, I just hope they can deliver.

Who is your ISP and what on earth does that connection run you a month?

I'd like to know this as well...

My ISP is Bahnhof and I live in Borlänge in Sweden, hooked up on the city fiber. Costs me around $20 a month.There are cheaper ISPs but I've had Bahnhof for a while so I don't mind paying $5 more a month for something that I know works 99,9% of the time.

Damn dude, where do you live and what is your ISP!? TELL MEAH!

LOL, I wrote that comment without even reading your answer right above my question, EPIC FAIL.

Man, why do the Swedish get all the good internets?

So in the future, I have to move to either Japan, South Korea or Sweden for their sweet internets. : D

Cause we're Swedes, it's cold outside so we stay inside and surf the web, and if we can't stream 15 pronvids at the same time there we call our ISP and complain. =) Well not really but we are quite fond of our connections. Most daily things are done trough the internet, paying bills, watching tv, playing games, talking on the phone. Soon you will go to the toilet using the Internet... In fact, I'm using www.logmein.com and remote controlling my desktop upstairs with my laptop downstairs (near my tv, multitasking =)...

I'm such a geek.... =)

Being skeptical doesn't mean you want it to fail. It just means you don't think it will work. It's essentially to every gamer's benefit to see this technology succeed.

"I pray to God it doesn't work because I feel like it will truly destroy gaming."

Plenty of people have said they want it to fail. The above is a quote from one of GundamVesperXIII's posts. Of course, he had a legitimate reason as to why he didn't want it to work (a surprise given his post history), but even that can be argued. It's still a good point, though, and certainly a viable counter argument, so I'll post it here -

"I like owning a piece of physical hardware that is mine and knowing that it will play games without limitations that are linked to the company."

Meaning, if the company were to impose unfair rules or fail on the consumer, they'd be shit outta luck.

Lets say it did work out, though. How cool would it be to have a little mini-console that would _never_ become outdated?

Step 1. Play
Step 2. Connect
Step 3. Games
Step 4. ..........
Step 5. Profit!

With some ISPs now charging on a per GB basis, and that practice slowly growing, gaming with something like OnLive could be a very expensive habit.

If and maybe more of when the big3 console makers of Nintendo, Sony, MS think they can pull this off, it'd be far more possible. OnLive just sends you a video signal, but if you have something like a ps3 that can take and process some of the data (game logic, rendering, etc) and stream the rest, you'd probably see it in mainstream use. They've already got DLC running well for them, and streaming or semi-streaming games would make sense.

I want my PS9 with electronic spores already!

I know right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLiiUkh_r7U

Jtenma, I love you, in a very manly sort of way :)

You just made things even more awkward.

This semi-streaming idea is interesting. Imagine being able to summon computing power from all the devices in your house to play games? So if I have a 360, a PS3, 2 PCs and Mac all hooked into the same network, I could play games on my PC and summon additional computing power from any/all of those devices. Gimme a device and software to do that and I'll definitely buy it. At least then you're not subject to the service providers.

This OnLive service is going to fail, but someone will take the good parts and build something really useful somewhere down the line.

"Lets say it did work out, though. How cool would it be to have a little mini-console that would _never_ become outdated?"

That's definitely the upside, but I'm personally a bit hesitant about all the "cloud" stuff. I don't want everything to go that direction... software, games, movies, etc... Before you know it we won't be in control of any of our entertainment or PC applications, we'll all be at the whim of the content providers. If this does work, it's not inconceivable that we would get pushed in that direction because it would mean total control for content providers.

Sounds about right to me. The current fiber network supports 10G/fiber. In 4-5 years, I'd bet all of it will be up to at least 40G with some in the 100G/240G range. Although, I'd bet the games of 2013 are going to put Crysis to shame.

Forgot to mention, I don't get charged for the amount of data downloaded or uploaded. Man I even got unlimited data on my cellphone's connection. =)

I can't imagine how fast the ISPs have evolved here in Sweden the last 5 years. around 10 years ago I got my first 0,5 mb connection. 4 years later I got 10/10 after I moved to a larger city. It's all about in which city you live in, and where in that city. If the city has a "city" fiber and you can hook up to it internet won't cost you much at all.

The U.S really needs to step up its broadband game, its not the worst but it certainly could be better!

Sweden has only 9 million people and most are packed like sardines or Canadians into the warmest places available. So it's easier for them to provide superduper internets.

This idea would work for PC and console gaming as well. Hell, maybe even handheld gaming in the future. This is the few times I agree with Mr. Sprinkles, I would be very upset if this concept completely replaced PCs and consoles, I don't mind it complementing them however.

What about those who live in rural areas who cannot get access to broadband period or its too expensive? For the rest of us, many ISPs have bandwidth caps such as 150gb download a month and I fear we would run past them quickly with OnLive, we're already doing it with YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, etc.

What if OnLive removes older games I'd like to play a couple of years later on again or never got the chance to like Final Fantasy 12?

In regards to streaming PC games, will OnLive allow the many mods and levels the user community creates for PC games to be run?

I want this idea to take off the ground but not completely kill off physical consoles and gaming PCs, not for the near future anyways.

Would it be funny if OnLive service couldnt even handle Crysis on its highest settings?

Now I'm far from an expert on these sorts of things, but I don't think game settings with OnLive would matter now would they? I don't think running a PC game on low or high settings would make a difference in bandwidth requirements, ping, latency all that stuff now would it?

sarcasm
1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.

Cosmo - douche bag
1. somebody who you think is a complete retard and or doesn't know anything about what they're talking about.

Garth Knight has spoken

| 1 | 2 | Most Recent | Next 50 Comments

Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Breaking News

OnLive to test WiFi support, extends free year offer and sale on all games

The most popular posts
in the last 7 days

Joyswag: Dead Rising 2 - Case Zero 1344 comments
Xbox Live subscription prices to rise; $60 for 1 year beginning in Nov. [update] 368 comments
New Xbox 360 controller with twist-up D-pad coming Nov. 9, bundled with charge kit for $65 212 comments
The benefits of building your own gaming PC 139 comments
Metroid: Other M review: a successful fusion 137 comments

Crytek believes streaming games will be viable ... in 2013

Reader Comments (61)

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 1:55PM SpartacusMagnus said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 3:04PM lockheede said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 1:59PM FredFredrickson said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:04PM Negatron said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:13PM (Unverified) said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:16PM SpartacusMagnus said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:39PM FredFredrickson said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:39PM Negatron said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:54PM (Unverified) said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 3:03PM RKN said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 3:21PM (Unverified) said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 3:24PM FredFredrickson said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 3:43PM SpartacusMagnus said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 4:29PM Vidikron said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 6:01PM SpartacusMagnus said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:07PM Da Largest said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:08PM Shadsy said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 3:05PM SugarDaddy said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 3:25PM FredFredrickson said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 4:36PM Mr Khan said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:13PM spin cycle said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:25PM Haggard said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:52PM ZayCube said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 3:11PM SugarDaddy said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:13PM creiij said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:18PM SpartacusMagnus said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:22PM jtenma said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:32PM creiij said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:42PM RKN said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:45PM RKN said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:46PM Autopsy15 said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:53PM RKN said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:55PM creiij said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:14PM (Unverified) said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:19PM Da Largest said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 3:56PM (Unverified) said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:21PM (Unverified) said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:24PM jtenma said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:26PM (Unverified) said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:51PM jtenma said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 3:18PM SugarDaddy said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:29PM Vidikron said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:31PM Berzerk said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:40PM creiij said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:43PM RKN said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 7:14PM (Unverified) said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:41PM RKN said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:50PM shimrra74 said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:54PM RKN said

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 3:20PM shimrra74 said

Info

Description

MSRP

Release Date

Genre

Developer

Publisher

Rating

Breaking News

OnLive to test WiFi support, extends free year offer and sale on all games

Featured Stories

Call of Duty: Black Ops preview: put your money where your multiplayer is

Super Scribblenauts preview: Maxwell's house

PlayStation Move review: The hardware and experience

The most popular postsin the last 7 days

Engadget

WoW

Massively

Big Download

Autoblog

Urlesque

Games.com Blog

UGO.com

The most popular posts
in the last 7 days