"Without knowing the exact numbers imagin that they share a USD 8000 Server (which would be a very capable gaming machine especially with the quantities they'd buy) by an average of 20 customers (since not every customer is using the hardware 24/7) than it comes down to USD 400 per customer. That looks to me like a reasonable amount. But again, just speculations of how it could work out for them."
You're doing it wrong. You're saying "We have X users. Buy X/20 systems because each user, on average, only plays 1 hour a day." when you should be saying "At peak game-time, we'll have X simultaneous users. Buy X systems."
>Well obviously for cost they said in interview it would be cheap for them because they are sharing the system. They said when > one person gets off, another person gets on, so instead of buying expensive $3000 computer for one person, it shared with maybe > 16-32 people.
You've got it completely wrong. Let me illustrate:
Lets say you have 1000 users. How many $3000 computers do you need to service your users? You assume each system will be shared, roughly, by 16 people, so you shell out the cash for 62 computers. So what do you get Half Life 8 is released, 4pm release-day rolls around and 500 kids get out of school wanting to play it? You get 432 pissed-off kids who cancel their subscription.
Onlive is doing a little hand-waving with regard to how cheap they can be with their servers. They *must* have enough hardware to handle peak-load without breaking a sweat. So, no, it's not actually "one person off, another comes on", it's more like "everyone's on for 5 hours, now everyone's off for 19 hours". Since their data centers have only a 1000 mile radius, most of their users are going to be in the same timezone and roughly on the same schedule. If they try too hard to save money on hardware the service will suffer at peak play-times. If that happens, they will lose customers.
I'm skeptical. I already have my girlfriend and job between me and my game time. Do I really want to put the reliability of Comcast *cough* and that of a far-away server cluster between me and my game time as well?
Presumably a smaller device, running a game at a lower resolution, would have smaller bandwidth needs. Of course, whatever handheld device you're using must have enough local horsepower to decompress the stream.
Tron: Evolution to have free, day-one multiplayer DLC
Nov 24th 2010 12:09PM (Joystiq)score one for you :)
my bad
Tron: Evolution to have free, day-one multiplayer DLC
Nov 24th 2010 12:00PM (Joystiq)Tron: Evolution to have free, day-one multiplayer DLC
Nov 24th 2010 11:58AM (Joystiq)"day-one" does not mean "one-time use"
Video: OnLive gaming demonstrated live, network latency discussed
Mar 26th 2009 12:54AM (Engadget)"Without knowing the exact numbers imagin that they share a USD 8000 Server (which would be a very capable gaming machine especially with the quantities they'd buy) by an average of 20 customers (since not every customer is using the hardware 24/7) than it comes down to USD 400 per customer. That looks to me like a reasonable amount. But again, just speculations of how it could work out for them."
You're doing it wrong. You're saying "We have X users. Buy X/20 systems because each user, on average, only plays 1 hour a day." when you should be saying "At peak game-time, we'll have X simultaneous users. Buy X systems."
Video: OnLive gaming demonstrated live, network latency discussed
Mar 26th 2009 12:38AM (Engadget)>Well obviously for cost they said in interview it would be cheap for them because they are sharing the system. They said when
> one person gets off, another person gets on, so instead of buying expensive $3000 computer for one person, it shared with maybe
> 16-32 people.
You've got it completely wrong. Let me illustrate:
Lets say you have 1000 users. How many $3000 computers do you need to service your users? You assume each system will be shared, roughly, by 16 people, so you shell out the cash for 62 computers. So what do you get Half Life 8 is released, 4pm release-day rolls around and 500 kids get out of school wanting to play it? You get 432 pissed-off kids who cancel their subscription.
Onlive is doing a little hand-waving with regard to how cheap they can be with their servers. They *must* have enough hardware to handle peak-load without breaking a sweat. So, no, it's not actually "one person off, another comes on", it's more like "everyone's on for 5 hours, now everyone's off for 19 hours". Since their data centers have only a 1000 mile radius, most of their users are going to be in the same timezone and roughly on the same schedule. If they try too hard to save money on hardware the service will suffer at peak play-times. If that happens, they will lose customers.
I'm skeptical. I already have my girlfriend and job between me and my game time. Do I really want to put the reliability of Comcast *cough* and that of a far-away server cluster between me and my game time as well?
Video: OnLive gaming demonstrated live, network latency discussed
Mar 26th 2009 12:05AM (Engadget)Presumably a smaller device, running a game at a lower resolution, would have smaller bandwidth needs. Of course, whatever handheld device you're using must have enough local horsepower to decompress the stream.
Engadget's recession antidote: win a Paradigm Cinema 70 CT surround system!
Mar 23rd 2009 4:29PM (Engadget)Engadget's recession antidote: win a 22-inch iZ3D 3D monitor!
Feb 19th 2009 12:51PM (Engadget)Engadget's recession antidote: win a 16GB Sandisk microSDHC!
Feb 11th 2009 1:37PM (Engadget)