"Perlman says OnLive [net-based game platform]’s combination of compression algorithms, distributed data centers and deals with Internet carriers to minimize transmission delays typically pushes the latency figure as low as 25 to 35 milliseconds, and no more than 80 in the worst case."

"deals with internet carriers"--isn't that what every media provider wants and doesn't it violate net neutrality? Curious to hear any thoughts on this.

- tom moody 8-16-2009 6:53 pm

Since Time-Warner is mentioned, I'm guessing they're one of the internet carriers in question. And yes, unless they offered a similar latency to all over cloud-based video game providers, then it would violate net neutrality.

Another way to address the latency is to use an approach similar to what Akamai and others use: a distributed array of servers. That way a user in Piscataway wouldn't be dealing with latency all the way across the country to Walla Walla. But that would quickly break down if the gamer and Piscataway and Walla Walla were playing against each other.

- mark 8-17-2009 2:06 am


Thanks. For the "next revolution in gaming" I think this has more obstacles than that article acknowledges. Like creating a new, second internet for gamers.
- tom moody 8-17-2009 5:13 am





add a comment to this page:

Your post will be captioned "posted by anonymous,"
or you may enter a guest username below:


Line breaks work. HTML tags will be stripped.