Gaikai Game-Streaming Service Gets More Funding
The service, which is currently in a closed beta test, will be "launching in North America soon, Gaikai's revolutionary cloud based streaming service will allow gamers to experience the latest video games via the Internet at any time, through multiple devices and platforms."
By placing the burden of rendering on a remote computer, equipped to play the latest games, the video from the game is then streamed to the user. Controls sent from the user are sent back to Gaikai, which passes inputs on to the game, and returns the video stream.
Concerns about bandwidth requirements have been raised about Gaikai and similar services like OnLive. While Gaikai had previously seemed to be focused on allowing gamers to play the latest games without sinking money into new hardware, the press release potentially positions the service as more of a trial or demo service:
Gaikai is a service that completely removes the need to pay to move gamers around on the internet (the most expensive part of customer acquisition), if the gamer is presented with a "BUY" button on any retailer or publisher website, then stop to consider if they want to buy or not, Gaikai can offer a trial of the game instantly within the web browser, with just one click. (Nothing to install, nothing to download.)
Personally, I think this is a great way to demo games on the PC, but I worry about not being able to accurately predict performance on my machine if I'm then required to buy the regular retail or digital version of the game.
-
Azaziel
replyInteresting idea. I really don't get the bandwith cap bullshit. With Tvs and just about everything in your damn home being able to connect to the Internet I don't see how they can keep a cap. Specially with the new Tvs coming out that can stream shit right to them. Should be interesting to see if companies do away with them since every damn electronic has wifi now.
-
[deleted]
-
the problem is with people thinking they can pay $19.95 a month, or $29.95 a month, to download full-rate non-stop 24/7. the US broadband market made a terrible mistake very early on by trying to market a limited service as "unlimited" then acting surprised when people are pissed it isnt actually unlimited. broadband should have been metered and capped according to the price of the service from day one if they wanted to avoid the inevitable backlash that comes from misleading their customers to believe they could get something (nay, everything!) for almost nothing.
of course, now that i think about it, i realize it shouldnt be all that surprising, considering this kind of issue can be seen reflected in almost every level of our society today.-
I don't think there is a problem with thinking that way. After all, that's the way it was advertised. If the company can't handle it, it's their fault, not the customer's. It sounds like you think it's the customer's fault here...?
Anyway, I don't think there SHOULD be a problem at all. They shouldn't oversell their bandwidth as much as they are, and instead upgrade their service as they get more and more people joining. All I've seen is faster top speeds around the same time they implemented the bandwidth limit, pointing towards them letting you go faster on existing cable since you won't be able to download as much in the long term.-
its the fault of the service provider for creating the false impression that a $29.99/mo package was in fact unlimited, and the fault of the consumer for being so naive as to believe that could actually be the case (and also not reading the fine print on the terms of use/terms of service for their contract)
personally, ive never had a problem with capped bandwidth... because ive been paying $150 a month (or more, things have steadily come down over the last 10 years) for my home internet for over 15 years. for that, i get to "drink from the firehose" as it were, and get QoS guarantees. im also completely unmetered. because i had worked in telecom in the past, i had the good sense to realize that consumer-grade low-priced services were a long long way from unlimited, and that if i wanted to use my connection any way i saw fit, i was going to have to: be careful in my selection of service provider; be willing to make modifications to the boilerplate service contract (and walk away from a provider that wouldnt accept them); and be willing to PAY for the higher level and quality of service.
you dont get something for nothing... and while its wrong for (insert entity of choice here: companies / governments / etc) to mislead people to believe it, its just as wrong for customers / citizens to be so stupid as to believe it. its a charlie foxtrot all the way around, and its going to result in painful consequences on both sides of the relationship before it gets sorted out... but the bottom line is that customers are going to have to learn to be willing to PAY FOR WHAT THEY WANT/GET and companies are going to have to learn that trying to offer one-size-fits all products (and misleading their customers) is a sure path to financial ruin.-
I'm still not seeing how the customer is in any way in the wrong with believing their connection was original unlimited. Especially back when there WEREN'T EXPLICIT CAPS. Even now that there are total DL caps, I still don't see how it's allowed for the customer to be punished for USING WHAT WE BOUGHT when we max our connection for some period of time.
It's not wrong for us to believe it. It was advertised for a long time that way, and only now that the companies realize "oh crap, they're catching on!" are they giving us all these explicit caps and stuff.
I'm in general willing to pay for what I want, and I've payed for it before, yet all of the sudden it's changed into something else due to hidden limits nobody knew of?-
im sorry, but customers do have a responsibility to not be gullible morons. they have a responsibility to read the fine print as well... i worked for several small ISPs back in the formative days of consumer internet service ('93-'97) and every one of them had a form of "acceptable use" clause in their contracts, as well as some "no guarantee of service level" language. and yes, the customer IS responsible for just blindly swallowing what a salesperson tells them and signing on the dotted line without even reading what theyre agreeing to. this in no way excuses the providers for trying to get over on the customer, but the customer is equally responsible for allowing themselves to be gotten over on.
sheep get sheared and slaughtered. thats their destiny in life. customers who behave like them should have no expectation of avoiding a similar fate, and have absolutely no right whatsoever to complain about it when it happens.
-
-
-
-
-
