[Rushy]

Eh, most can if they cut the res or make other tweaks for split screen. Its just not desirable to the player, really. That's probably the main reason split screen is dying out.

That's exactly what I'm talking about though, it can't handle two PoVs at a viewable resolution. Saying "you'd just have to lower the settings" equates to "shitty console." Since it can't handle itself they just don't include split screen. Games like Battlefield are perfect for splitscreen, but don't include it because reasons.

[Ghost of V]

Eh, most can if they cut the res or make other tweaks for split screen. Its just not desirable to the player, really. That's probably the main reason split screen is dying out.

That's exactly what I'm talking about though, it can't handle two PoVs at a viewable resolution. Saying "you'd just have to lower the settings" equates to "shitty console." Since it can't handle itself they just don't include split screen. Games like Battlefield are perfect for splitscreen, but don't include it because reasons.

Well, I doubt many people have rigs that can handle two instances of the same modern game running at the same time anyways.

[beardo]

split screen is never perfect. The screens gets too disproportionate. Unless you play on a big ass TV with four player split screen so that the screens can be in proper proportions, but how many games supports this?.

[Pete Svarrior]

I don't get it. If you're aiming for shit tier performance, why not just get a console? Gaming PCs are for surpassing console performance, not matching it.

One reason could be that it lets you do more than gaming.

[EnigmaZV]

Eh, most can if they cut the res or make other tweaks for split screen. Its just not desirable to the player, really. That's probably the main reason split screen is dying out.

That's exactly what I'm talking about though, it can't handle two PoVs at a viewable resolution. Saying "you'd just have to lower the settings" equates to "shitty console." Since it can't handle itself they just don't include split screen. Games like Battlefield are perfect for splitscreen, but don't include it because reasons.

Well, I doubt many people have rigs that can handle two instances of the same modern game running at the same time anyways.

Yes, because that's exactly how consoles do it.

[Ghost of V]

Eh, most can if they cut the res or make other tweaks for split screen. Its just not desirable to the player, really. That's probably the main reason split screen is dying out.

That's exactly what I'm talking about though, it can't handle two PoVs at a viewable resolution. Saying "you'd just have to lower the settings" equates to "shitty console." Since it can't handle itself they just don't include split screen. Games like Battlefield are perfect for splitscreen, but don't include it because reasons.

Well, I doubt many people have rigs that can handle two instances of the same modern game running at the same time anyways.

Yes, because that's exactly how consoles do it.

Did I say that? Please enlightening me as to where I had typed these words, good sir.

[Particle Person]

If you didn't believe that, the comment about PCs not being able to perform well with two completely separate instances of a game running would be entirely irrelevant.

[Rushy]

If you didn't believe that, the comment about PCs not being able to perform well with two completely separate instances of a game running would be entirely irrelevant.

He was probably reflecting back to my earlier post:

Well it depends on your definition of "split screen gaming." Two people could easily play two "split-screen" games on the same computer at the same time, but I doubt there are many computer games that actively support this with in-game options.

[Fortuna]

PC gaming will die before console gaming. The reason is that PC gaming is more of a solitary experience. It's more of a chore to set up a LAN party or lug your computer around than to just bring a console and plug in three extra controllers. For a lot of people, console gaming is just more fun. And game mechanics will always be > graphics in terms of enjoyment.

Considering how many split screen games are being made these days, I'm going to say you're wrong.
Very, very wrong.

That isn't why he's wrong. Also, many split screen games for the PC?

In 10 years when everyone has gigabit internet connections, we'll just pay for a cloud based service and we'll stream games to our TV through an Apple TV size box. The PC enthusiast days will end as the smartphone generation grows up.

[Vindictus]

lol gigabit connections in 10 years. Just a few people are getting that shit now, and it's expensive. There will be a lack of need for such a connection as well, even 10 years from now.

Assuming this hypothetical gigabit world, why would PC's be worse when the PC gaming market already largely exists on various cloud systems?

[Fortuna]

lol gigabit connections in 10 years. Just a few people are getting that shit now, and it's expensive. There will be a lack of need for such a connection as well, even 10 years from now.

If technology continues to progress at the rate it has been, gigabit connections will be common in 10 years.

Assuming this hypothetical gigabit world, why would PC's be worse when the PC gaming market already largely exists on various cloud systems?

What? You mean that people download their games from services like Steam, right? That's not what I'm talking about.

[Lord Dave]

PC gaming will die before console gaming. The reason is that PC gaming is more of a solitary experience. It's more of a chore to set up a LAN party or lug your computer around than to just bring a console and plug in three extra controllers. For a lot of people, console gaming is just more fun. And game mechanics will always be > graphics in terms of enjoyment.

Considering how many split screen games are being made these days, I'm going to say you're wirong.
Very, very wrong.

That isn't why he's wrong. Also, many split screen games for the PC?

In 10 years when everyone has gigabit internet connections, we'll just pay for a cloud based service and we'll stream games to our TV through an Apple TV size box. The PC enthusiast days will end as the smartphone generation grows up.

This already exists.
games.onlive.com/

10 gigabits is hardly required.  1/10 of that is more than sufficient for now.  It'll go higher as HD and HD4K become more common.

[Rushy]

In 10 years when everyone has gigabit internet connections, we'll just pay for a cloud based service and we'll stream games to our TV through an Apple TV size box. The PC enthusiast days will end as the smartphone generation grows up.

There are a lot of companies that offer cloud gaming and they are all going down the tubes because its an awful idea. No one wants to add input latency on top of all of their games. Even as low as 1ms input latencies are noticeable. It doesn't matter how much bandwidth you throw at them (they only need as much as YouTube) there will always be slight input and return lag.

[markjo]

If technology continues to progress at the rate it has been, gigabit connections will be common in 10 years.

Technology development != technology deployment.

[Lord Dave]

In 10 years when everyone has gigabit internet connections, we'll just pay for a cloud based service and we'll stream games to our TV through an Apple TV size box. The PC enthusiast days will end as the smartphone generation grows up.

There are a lot of companies that offer cloud gaming and they are all going down the tubes because its an awful idea. No one wants to add input latency on top of all of their games. Even as low as 1ms input latencies are noticeable. It doesn't matter how much bandwidth you throw at them (they only need as much as YouTube) there will always be slight input and return lag.

If everyone has the input lag, then it's not really an issue.

Also, it's not really much different than normal input lag.  Yes your local view won't update as quickly but the time it takes for the server to update is the same.  Most of this is solved with input prediction subroutines anyway.

[Rushy]

If everyone has the input lag, then it's not really an issue.

....What?

Also, it's not really much different than normal input lag.  Yes your local view won't update as quickly but the time it takes for the server to update is the same.  Most of this is solved with input prediction subroutines anyway.

Dave, I understand your strategy is to make shit up and hope it makes sense and I'll admit it normally works out for you, but this is just utter nonsense and you should be ashamed for posting it.

[Pete Svarrior]

Most of this is solved with input prediction subroutines anyway.

Which can only be used if you have a computer capable of doing that. In Andrew's hypothetical scenario, you wouldn't have that luxury.

[Lord Dave]

If everyone has the input lag, then it's not really an issue.

....What?

Also, it's not really much different than normal input lag.  Yes your local view won't update as quickly but the time it takes for the server to update is the same.  Most of this is solved with input prediction subroutines anyway.

Dave, I understand your strategy is to make shit up and hope it makes sense and I'll admit it normally works out for you, but this is just utter nonsense and you should be ashamed for posting it.

gafferongames.com/networking-for-game-programmers/what-every-programmer-needs-to-know-about-game-networking/

Look at the bit titled Client-Side Prediction.  In this case it would be on the server but the same principal applies.  And all you need to do is loop the previous input until you get new input from the client. 

Yes it will be slower by some number of ms but with a fast enough connection, it isn't too noticeable.  I mean, its not like keyboard/mouse input data requires a lot of bandwidth.  And that data only goes one way.

Also remember that while your local based game can visually react nearly instantly it still has to send your input data to the server, have the server process it, then send any corrections on position and status back to the client.
The only real difference with cloud gaming is that instead of sending status updates downstream, it sends a video stream.



-edit-
Wait, do you mean input lag as the lag between key press and visual output or key press and the system processing that key press only(before video output)?

-edit 2-
Well fuck.  Looks like video games use the former definition of input lag and I use the latter.  Sorry about that.  In that context, yes, what I said is retarded and I'm ashamed.

[Pete Svarrior]

Yes it will be slower by some number of ms but with a fast enough connection, it isn't too noticeable.  I mean, its not like keyboard/mouse input data requires a lot of bandwidth.  And that data only goes one way.

Bandwidth is not what you need here, it's latency.

[Lord Dave]

Yes it will be slower by some number of ms but with a fast enough connection, it isn't too noticeable.  I mean, its not like keyboard/mouse input data requires a lot of bandwidth.  And that data only goes one way.

Bandwidth is not what you need here, it's latency.

Well you need both (bandwidth for the video stream) but you're right.  Even 56kb/s upload would probably be sufficient if you had very low latency.

Which is why the services require you to live within 1,000 miles from their server farm.