Streaming games could be bane or boon for ISPs

[JoePesci]

Wow, on the same day Blockbuster announces Tivo downloads of movies, OnLive announces streaming games. BTW, I don't know why I would get my downloaded movies from Blockbuster when I can get them (and TV shows) from Amazon directly to my Tivo, also (and I'd be willing to bet that Amazon will have HD downloads before Blockbuster downloads are even available to my Tivo -- my guess is 3 months for Amazon HD downloads to my Tivo and 6 months for Blockbuster downloads to my Tivo). Blockbuster will sure be pushing them thar Tivo's, though, which Tivo's gotta love. So when everybody Tivo's all their favorite shows, why are they then going to come back to Blockbuster when they already have something to watch on their Tivo. A truly brilliant marketing strategy on Jim Keyes part -- sell someone else's product (and give them lots of free promotion) which sort of makes your product almost irrelevant.

Streaming games could be bane or boon for ISPs

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Stream...-14746029.html

"Streaming games could be bane or boon for ISPs
Video games streamed over the Internet could bump into Internet bandwidth caps

* Peter Svensson, AP Technology Writer
* Wednesday March 25, 2009, 4:26 pm EDT

*
Buzz up!
* Print

Related:

* Comcast Corporation
* , Netflix, Inc.
* , Time Warner Cable Inc.

NEW YORK (AP) -- Parents might get a new reason to yell at their kids for playing video games too much: In the future, it could rack up their Internet bills.
Related Quotes
Symbol Price Change
CMCSA 13.94 -0.05
Chart for Comcast Corporation
NFLX 41.56 -1.86
Chart for Netflix, Inc.
TWC 26.73 -0.18
Chart for TIME WARNER CABLE
{"s" : "cmcsa,nflx,twc","k" : "c10,l10,p20,t10","o" : "","j" : ""}

A service unveiled this week aims to stream video games over the Internet, setting gamers on a collision course with cable and phone companies that are seeking to curb growing demands on their networks by charging for heavy usage.

OnLive Inc., a startup from Palo Alto, California, revealed its service Tuesday night at the Game Developers Conference in San Francisco. Users would get a small, simple device to connect to their TVs, or they could run the application on a PC. Their screens would receive the game video from OnLive's servers, which would do the data-crunching needed to render a richly detailed environment. No game console or high-end gaming PC would be needed.

It's uncertain how well OnLive would work in homes -- there has been no widespread customer trial. It is clear, though, that it would consume large amounts of bandwidth, far higher than that required for current online games, where most of the content is stored on the computer or console.

The company puts the data usage at just under a gigabyte per hour of high-definition gaming. The only Internet application with comparable consumption is high-definition video, like movies bought through iTunes, watched on Netflix Inc.'s streaming service, or downloaded from file-sharing networks.

Internet service providers are already girding for rising use of Internet video by placing monthly limits on the amount of traffic their subscribers can use. The approach varies. Some are setting limits so high than only a small fraction of users ever reach them. For instance, Comcast Corp., the second-largest U.S. ISP, limits usage to 250 gigabytes per month, and cuts off repeat violators. OnLive says its users would need to play around the clock for nearly 12 straight days to reach that.

However, other Internet service providers are trying lower limits, then charging extra for those who go over. It's not clear which approach will win out, but subscribers on low-limit ISPs could quickly find themselves paying far more for their Internet connection, particularly since many gamers spend more than 20 hours a week on a game.

Frontier Corp., a regional phone company, has alerted its customers that it plans to charge extra for usage above 5 gigabytes per month. That's 5 hours and 40 minutes of OnLive gaming, if the connection is used for nothing else. Time Warner Cable Inc., the country's third-largest ISP, is testing four plans with different caps in Beaumont, Texas. The highest provides 40 gigabytes per month. Every gigabyte above that, or a bit more than hour of OnLive gaming, would cost a dollar.

Time Warner Cable spokesman Alex Dudley say the fees are a way to finance the network, by charging more for those who use their connection the most.

Derek Turner, research director at media and Internet advocacy group Free Press, said the bandwidth caps are "misguided" because they can stifle new applications like OnLive that add value to an Internet connection.

Also, he said, the profit margins on Internet connections are very high, and it's not clear that ISPs need to increase their fees to finance upgrades, especially since the cost of network hardware keeps falling."

[JohnMcClane]

Yeah...Blockbuster's streaming service won't save them, but this streaming on-demand gaming...now that it just genius for the game industry!

[BUYMECAR]

streaming games is such a troll attempt on following the growing market strategy to offer streaming media. it'll probably take more effort to successfully make use of downloaded/streaming games than torrent+convert.

[ClutztomerControl]

Considering everyone just unloaded tons of money on the PS3, X360, and Wii... I don't see this out of nowhere console making it in such an uneasy economy. However, I do foresee the big name companies putting more state of the art games on their consoles online market place... Other than Wii-Ware or Xbox Live Arcade games and such.

[Antithesys]

This will be an unmitigated disaster. Downloading an HD-quality game is fine. Streaming an HD-quality game? You've got to be kidding me.

Though I should mention that in 1994 I boldly predicted that Sony's new game console would never be able to compete with Nintendo and Sega.

[DavidNewlySL]

Originally Posted by Antithesys

This will be an unmitigated disaster. Downloading an HD-quality game is fine. Streaming an HD-quality game? You've got to be kidding me.

Though I should mention that in 1994 I boldly predicted that Sony's new game console would never be able to compete with Nintendo and Sega.

I still say Dreamcast was horrible...I still say Nintendo 64 kicked playstations butt...all the way around...and donkey kong on super nintendo...was way ahead of it's time.

[djblade]

Its very very very hard to reach 250 gigabytes per month. You would have to do a lot of downloading and steaming games like hell.

Plus, steaming games might cause LAAAGGGGG. lol

[ClutztomerControl]

Originally Posted by DavidNewlySL

I still say Dreamcast was horrible...I still say Nintendo 64 kicked playstations butt...all the way around...and donkey kong on super nintendo...was way ahead of it's time.

The Dreamcast was ahead of it's time. First Online gaming system, Next Gen graphics(at the time). It was an awesome system. Just wasn't marketed well.

[ClutztomerControl]

Originally Posted by ClutztomerControl

Considering everyone just unloaded tons of money on the PS3, X360, and Wii... I don't see this out of nowhere console making it in such an uneasy economy. However, I do foresee the big name companies putting more state of the art games on their consoles online market place... Other than Wii-Ware or Xbox Live Arcade games and such.

I retract this statement. After watching videos of the device. I am sold. It's a very cool technology.


Watch this.
http://gdc.gamespot.com/video/620669...opslot;thumb;5

Most Powerful System that will be on the market.

[BUYMECAR]

Originally Posted by ClutztomerControl

The Dreamcast was ahead of it's time. First Online gaming system, Next Gen graphics(at the time). It was an awesome system. Just wasn't marketed well.

i agree with this, but i think the downside of the dreamcast was mostly due to its game title selection. dreamcast was by and large built around the fighting genre. apart from fighting games, all it really had were Shenmue and Jet Grind Radio.