Jump to content

Uncle Mike

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Uncle Mike

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

13,963 profile views
  1. That's a strange use of quotes then, to mean something that wasn't said?
  2. The technology is basically already in some TVs, I think. It's a Chromecast for TVs, as demonstrated. There are already TVs with built-in Chromecast stuff. Support is a different thing, obvs. This isn't anything fancy at all in the TV.
  3. Networking is also deployable as a software service these days, so there's nothing technologically that prevents them spinning up the whole datacentre based on demand. I have no idea what Google (or similar services like Azure or AWS) actually do in this regard, but you could pretty straightforwardly reduce the electricity cost for elements not in use. Is a console with a one-off download better for the environment? I haven't done the maths. But there's a lot in favour of the datacentre. Of the x million PS4s in the world, how many are in use at the peak time, and the average time? All of those have been manufactured, shipped around the world, taken to a warehouse, driven to a house etc. Residential power might not be renewable. I might have 2 or three consoles and my average usage of them is likely that no-one's using them (the kids are at school, I'm at work.) That's not a great footprint. It's 2019. My home router is on already. The incremental electricity to me of data coming in or not is essentially zero. All the internet infrastructure we have isn't varying massively in electrical usage based on traffic levels. And those datacentres are more likely to be using renewables than your average residence. I think I vaguely recall someone doing the maths on Netflix versus DVDs for the environment. I think it came out in favour of Netflix.
  4. They don't necessarily need to be turned on 24/7/365. We have things like Wake On LAN now, so a lot of the server farm can be physically deployed but turned off except at peak times. Demand management is key. There's obviously a consideration of what it costs the environment for every home to be sent its own dedicated console hardware (and maybe more than one for a family), its own library of game discs etc, versus a more centralised server farm. Where the maths come out, I'm not 100% sure, but I'd tend to suggest it's likely in favour of the centralised server farm.
  5. Don't know why you've put "no" there in quotes. The claim was "less" which is likely true. Google's connectivity between its datacentres is going to be lower latency, more predictable and more under Google's direct control than my worldwide connectivity.
  6. It's good to know low latency video conferencing has never worked. Get a grip, people. Sure, you'll need good reliable internet for this to work. No, it's probably not the platform to be playing the hypothetical twitch arcade games that no-one's playing (because they already sell to no-one.) But there are piles of games that would work pretty well over streaming (no-one needs twitch reflexes to play The Witness, or Assassin's Creed) some that might potentially even benefit (anything where you have to shoot a networked object reliably) and some new game types that might be enabled by a massively online shared infrastructure. There's such a collective failure of thinking here. I think Google's apparent need to show it playing Assassin's Creed and Doom Eternal is perhaps necessary for a marketing/viability shout, but probably barking up the wrong tree. Also, Phil Harrison always struck me as the sort of person who's great at only having the first part of an idea. I'm not saying this will definitely be amazing. I am suggesting it's not inherently doomed to fail.
  7. @deKay So one about personal taste (microphones) and definitely nothing about viability of the service. One about aimbots (I don't know a lot about aimbots, but it strikes me as at least partly bollocks - anyone using the controller won't have an interface to the display device - and not the point they were making about "no hacking" anyway.) And then one about the controller that misunderstood the technology. Not a great set.
  8. Will I regret asking you which ones? It was largely bollocks to my eyes.
  9. Yeah, that's true. Their hardware business has suffered from lack of focus and commitment. So, fairly obviously, have their efforts in social media and chat/messaging apps. Time will tell with this, obviously. But shipping a controller is a lot different (and obviously cheaper) than a Slate or Pixelbook. It's more in line with Chromecasts and Homes, and they do pretty well. I dunno. I feel like I'm posting like a huge advocate for this. I'm not, really. I'm sceptical that they can overcome the latency in the real world. I'm sceptical they can maintain consistent video quality. But I do find it intriguing that it seems well thought-out technologically, and in some of the ways they're trying to do new things.
  10. I've never heard of Rainway. If those are high quality thoughts of its CEO, I'll probably give Rainway a pass. He has either misunderstood or is misrepresenting several of the items.
  11. It needs a lot of infrastructure to scale, but the video encoding isn't particularly the hard bit.
  12. Yes. That doesn't change the numbers on video bitrate much.
  13. What do you think they'd be paying for?
  14. I don't think they'll be able to go miles off-piste without compromising their "any device" strategy. I'd assume it'll be relatively standard h.264 (although there's loads of variability even in that spec) maybe with VP9 or HEVC (I haven't looked up what the Chromecast supports) for bigger screens and higher resolutions. But then I also assume (without having looked) that Netflix et al are using HEVC also, so that should be pretty consistent.

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.