http://gamingtrend.com
October 21, 2014, 09:43:13 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Web browser gaming is the future?  (Read 1009 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Ridah
Senior Staff Writer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5567



View Profile
« on: December 04, 2010, 01:24:55 AM »

There was an article at Eurogamer that I found interesting.

Phil Harrison, the former Sony president, said that in 5-10 years we'll see console-level gaming on web browsers.

I think with Cloud computing this is definitely a possibility, we're already seeing a huge amount of people getting into browser-based games like Farmville and such.

What do you guys think?
Logged

Sean Lama
Senior Staff Editor, GamingTrend
Hamsterball_Z
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 228



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2010, 08:53:38 PM »

Isn't that what Onlive does now?  Tycho at Penny Arcade was talking about playing Batman: AA on a Mac through the Onlive browser plugin a couple weeks ago.

I'll give you a better prediction.  A cable provider (Comcast) or a cable box manufacturer (Motorola) will buy out Onlive and integrate it into their cable boxes.  Now you've got games through On Demand.  Who needs a console when you can play any game through a device you've got by default because you have cable?  Bye bye next gen consoles. 
Logged

(HBZ)
Destructor
Special Project Group
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15962


▲▲▼▼◄►◄►B A Start


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 05, 2010, 12:14:09 AM »

Quote from: Hamsterball_Z on December 04, 2010, 08:53:38 PM

I'll give you a better prediction.  A cable provider (Comcast) or a cable box manufacturer (Motorola) will buy out Onlive and integrate it into their cable boxes.  Now you've got games through On Demand.  Who needs a console when you can play any game through a device you've got by default because you have cable?  Bye bye next gen consoles. 

And then Comcast demands more money from said provider because it's 'removing content and putting extra load over their network' or some bullshit like that like they're doing with Netflix now.

It won't happen. A dedicated gaming box will rule over any 'browser gaming' in the future.
Logged

"All opinions posted are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled."
Hamsterball_Z
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 228



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: December 05, 2010, 01:29:23 AM »

What?  In my scenario, said provider is Comcast.  It's another revenue stream that they control, that's why I think they would buy them.  I'm also thinking that if Comcast was providing the service they can put Onlive servers in their local offices and prioritize the traffic.  That would probably solve most of the issues the service has now.

Lets try an example situation.  You want to play a new game, you don't have a console or PC that will play it but you do have the option to play it on your cable box.  Do you spend $400 to buy a console and the game or do you spend $5 or $10 to rent it through On Demand?  For the infrequent/casual gamers that might look like a pretty good deal.  They get pretty much the same experience and they're probably not going to be too bothered by a little less fidelity and minor glitches.  Those that want the best quality experience might actually look past the consoles and get a top of the line PC instead.
Logged

(HBZ)
Ridah
Senior Staff Writer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5567



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: December 05, 2010, 09:09:33 PM »

If the hypothetical Comcast gaming service is as shitty as their cable and internet services, then no it will not dominate a dedicated gaming console. At this point I think gamers will demand the quality of platforms like Xbox Dashboard or Steam.

Maybe another company could pull it off, there's a bunch of companies going after the TV right now.

I do believe that as far as PC gaming goes, web browser gaming will become bigger than traditional PC gaming. I mean, the company that makes Facebook titles like Farmville is bigger than EA now.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2010, 09:11:19 PM by Ridah » Logged

Sean Lama
Senior Staff Editor, GamingTrend
rshetts2
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2420



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: December 05, 2010, 09:52:07 PM »

Besides the next generation of gaming consoles will surely take advantage of a robust web browser to tap the browser game market as well, much like theyve done with video streaming.  Comcast can buy out whomever they want but PC's and consoles are not going to just roll over and die to them.
Logged

Can you see the real me? Can ya, CAN YA?
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5105



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2011, 05:16:06 AM »

Has anyone used the Onlive service? I'm debating whether to get Deus Ex through them instead of upgrading the rig. I will still play over the PC rather than a TV though.
Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Rumpy
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1470



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: June 19, 2011, 11:08:19 PM »

Quote from: Ridah on December 04, 2010, 01:24:55 AM


Phil Harrison, the former Sony president, said that in 5-10 years we'll see console-level gaming on web browsers.

It's already technically possible with the advent of Unity3D, which has really advanced what's possible to be played on web browsers. Just look at their Bootcamp demo:

http://unity3d.com/gallery/live-demos/index.html#bootcamp

A real multiplayer browser based game based on this is in development now from what I hear.
Logged
Turtle
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9419



View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 20, 2011, 12:46:10 AM »

However, these are all still clunky third party plugins and the like. We're a long ways from any sort of full integration. HTML 5 is a step in that direction, but there's a ways to go. And, as connected as we are nowadays, we're still 10 years out from true mass connectivity, not just a large privileged few, and as we've seen lately, tying anything to an always on, vulnerable connection is not such a good idea.

Web based gaming is a future, but not the future. It will be common, probably more common than other gaming platforms right now, but in the long run, but it's not everything and a lot of what you find there is primitive.
Logged
happydog
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: June 23, 2011, 09:56:31 PM »

Quote from: Moliere on June 16, 2011, 05:16:06 AM

Has anyone used the Onlive service? I'm debating whether to get Deus Ex through them instead of upgrading the rig. I will still play over the PC rather than a TV though.

I have used OnLive and have the micro-console. I can't say I have logged a bunch of hours, but I have played off and on and find that the service has huge potential. The only real problem right now is that connections are not consistent, and you really need that to pull it off flawlessly.
Logged

LiveTAG: happydog
YellowKing
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3145



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: June 23, 2011, 11:11:34 PM »

I played the beta of a soon-to-be-released browser based action-RPG/MMO and I was blown away. While it wasn't on par with an A-list title released today, it looked as good as an average PC game released just a few years ago. If they can pull that off in a browser now, then I have no doubt that we will see stand-alone, installable game type quality on the web. The one thing I sort of disagree with might be a matter of semantics. I don't believe that web games will be able to keep up with consoles of their generation. So while web gaming in 2021 might look really good, I don't think it's going to look as good as console/PC gaming in 2021.

Aside from the technology standpoint, it makes sense from a business standpoint. The only way publishers can truly stop piracy is to keep the code on their side of the fence. Browser based games are a really easy way to do that.

We are quickly moving into a world where ALL forms of media - be it books, music, movies, or games are going to be accessible from everyone, everywhere, at any time. I don't think physical media will be obsolete in the near future, but I think it will be considered an extreme inconvenience and one the younger generation likely won't put up with. Just as I can now watch a movie on my PC from Netflix, stop it and go watch it on my TV, then stop that and go watch it on my iPad, we will see games that are just as flexible/mobile.

 
Logged
Blackjack
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10883



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: June 24, 2011, 05:57:14 PM »

Color me... curious but not yet convinced. I've dabbled in some stuff like the Battlestar Galactica MMO (browser based), and not come away either terribly impressed or horribly dismayed. That may say more about the game's implementation than any limitations of being browser-based per se, to be fair.

It reminds me a bit though of the obsession with trying to move business users to using "everything browser based," and the limitations there (if you aren't online or can't get online, then you're dead in the water).

I'm fine with companies branching out into various waters and trying stuff (gaming platform diversity, if you will), but I think it's too early for big game publishers to assume they can move into Minecraft, Farmville or smartphone app waters and still make a mint and overcharge everybody in sight. I think there's a big danger of shoveling square pegs into round holes. Including of monolithic publishers thinking the pricing model that works for Joe Blow and his dev team of 2 people necessarily makes sense for said monolithic entities.

But I digress. I'll be interested to see what browser-based gaming morphs into, though I hope they can find ways to easily support multiple browser types (since I prefer Firefox, and others probably prefer Chrome, Safari, Opera, whatever). It would be a bummer if I always had to boot up IE to play browser-based games.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 06:00:50 PM by Blackjack » Logged

Playing
PC
-Wasteland 2 (post-apoc, turn-based squad strategy/RPG )
-Grim Dawn
-Gauntlet (4 player co-op dungeon arcade brawling)
Rumpy
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1470



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: June 25, 2011, 03:00:58 AM »

Quote from: Blackjack on June 24, 2011, 05:57:14 PM

Color me... curious but not yet convinced. I've dabbled in some stuff like the Battlestar Galactica MMO (browser based), and not come away either terribly impressed or horribly dismayed. That may say more about the game's implementation than any limitations of being browser-based per se, to be fair.

Yeah, the problem with the BSG game (which uses Unity) is that it's not a very good implementation of the technology. The graphics are not too bad, but the gameplay really leaves a lot to be desired. Feels very clunky and I think one of the things that will need to happen for browser based games like this one to move forward would be for them to not be clunky. If anything's to go by the demo that I posted earlier, and if games are to look that good in the future, they'll also need to feel responsive.

The thing with these browser games though is that, the browser is already taking up memory that could otherwise be allocated to something else, unlike an installable game that you just load up and play, and browsers are going to have to change how they handle memory if we're going to be playing some heavy duty games in the future.

I just hope that Star Trek browser game ends up being good instead of a disappointment like the BSG game.
Logged
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5105



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: June 30, 2011, 09:40:16 PM »

Has OnLive’s Steve Perlman Discovered Holy Grail of Wireless?

Quote
Amateur radio licenses in hand, Perlman and his team at another of his startups, Rearden Companies, invented completely new radio technology, which he claims is simpler and cheaper than the innards of modern cell phones. DIDO’s feature list almost sounds too good to be true:

    Its “unlimited bandwidth” will eliminate dead zones and dropped calls, even in an urban jungle like New York City.
    The signals will pass through solid objects that block cellular signals at the same frequency and power.
    It doesn’t need tall cell towers — just modest base stations the size of an internet router.
    Those access points will broadcast a signal over a mile, while outdoor antennas can reach 30 miles or more in every direction (beyond the curvature of the earth, brags Perlman). Theoretically, that number will rise to 250 miles once Rearden’s engineers have time to test the tech at a longer range.

If they can provide consistent bandwidth and uptime then this business model should work.
Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8859



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: June 30, 2011, 09:53:35 PM »

For a Wired article, I notice that the article is short on actual, y'know, technical details.  And I'm sure I'll be able to kludge through the actual patent in no time...

Anyway, color me skeptical. 

Quote
Fundamentally, MIMO technology is based on the use of spatially distributed antennas for creating parallel spatial data streams within a common frequency band. The radio waves are transmitted in such a way that the individual signals can be separated at the receiver and demodulated, even though they are transmitted within the same frequency band, which can result in multiple statistically independent (i.e. effectively separate) communications channels. Thus, in contrast to standard wireless communication systems which attempt to inhibit multi-path signals (i.e., multiple signals at the same frequency delayed in time, and modified in amplitude and phase), MIMO can rely on uncorrelated or weakly-correlated multi-path signals to achieve a higher throughput and improved signal-to-noise ratio within a given frequency band. By way of example, MIMO technology achieves much higher throughput in comparable power and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) conditions where a conventional non-MIMO system can achieve only lower throughput. This capability is described on Qualcomm Incorporated's (Qualcomm is one of the largest providers of wireless technology) website on a page entitled "What MIMO Delivers" at http://www.cdmatech.com/products/what_mimo_delivers.jsp: "MIMO is the only multiple antenna technique that increases spectral capacity by delivering two or more times the peak data rate of a system per channel or per MHz of spectrum. To be more specific, for wireless LAN or Wi-Fi® applications QUALCOMM's fourth generation MIMO technology delivers speeds of 315 Mbps in 36 MHz of spectrum or 8.8 Mbps/MHz. Compare this to the peak capacity of 802.11a/g (even with beam-forming or diversity techniques) which delivers only 54 Mbps in 17 MHz of spectrum or 3.18 Mbps/MHz."
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3

Quote from: McBa1n
http://www.vuvuzela.fm BVVVVVVVVVVVRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.108 seconds with 53 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.019s, 2q)