It's more a trickle than a tsunami, but a study shows online gaming, the application that drives so much bandwidth usage in Asia, is beginning to take hold in the United States. The challenge for carriers will be to make sure they can make money off the trend.
Online gaming could consume one third of all U.S. backbone traffic by 2008, or 735 petabits per month, according to Eric Mantion, an analyst with In-Stat/MDR. Worldwide, online games accounted for 2 exabits (1018, the step after a petabit) of data being transferred last year, Mantion says.
The U.S. experience isn't the same as what's happening in Korea, where individual games attract millions of participants and tournaments are broadcast on TV. Still, the numbers show that interest is brewing. About one sixth of the U.S. population plays online games now, and that figure should grow to one half by 2008, Mantion estimates.
That's a nice chunk of traffic for carriers, but they face the problem of getting paid for their work. "When you pay money to play EverQuest, you're paying that company. You're not paying Qwest or whoever you buy broadband from," Mantion says. "Lots of people want to talk about the revenues [from games] but they don't calculate the impacts."
Even though games will take North America slowly, compared with Korea, carriers and equipment vendors need to start making provisions, Mantion says. For example, Sun Microsystems Inc. (Nasdaq: SUNW) has appointed a chief gaming officer and is developing a server specifically for online games. It's conceivable that carriers could likewise appoint executives just to deal with the effect of games on the network, Mantion says.
"For years, broadband providers have used these Web caches. I might get something from a Yahoo Website, but two seconds later, you might get it from a cache. In the same way, they're going to have to start adding game servers to their networks," Mantion says. "If the broadband players don't do anything, they have substantially more to lose than the price of a few game servers."
AT&T Corp. (NYSE: T), for example, provides some of the North American Web servers for Blizzard Entertainment, which runs its own network for massively multiplayer games such as WarCraft III. AT&T doesn't get money from the games directly, but the traffic does cross AT&T's network, guaranteeing the carrier a bit of money from service providers. "It's like foot traffic," Mantion says.
Of course, broadband access will need some changes as well. Cable, being a shared medium, already has a throttling mechanism. DSL would need something equivalent to make sure gamers don't eat up bandwidth. "Instead of pricing access, you start price services," says Frank Dzubeck, president of Communications Network Architects. "They only way [carriers] are going to get a piece of the pot is by you buying more bandwidth."
The real backbreaker for the U.S. networks will be video -- HDTV in every home -- rather than gaming, Dzubeck says. Either way, he doesn't think networks aren't prepared to handle the load: "The metro's not built out. If you do fiber to the home, we don't have enough in the metro. If we ever do a buildout like Verizon or SBC wants to do, forget it."
I didn't give up. Truthfully, I think my idea has more merit than anything you've come up with. The only problem is that you have given a strong case that online gamers are an unreachable market. Therefore, since I don't work for a GSP, it would be up to them to weigh the value of your remarks. As for me, you've laid your cards on the table, they are your cards so you can do with them whatever you want, but since I'm not impressed by your insulting demeanor, I see no reason to continue to communicate on this subject with you. Done.
Coloing with SBC breaks SOEs business. People put hundreds of days into their characters. People playing Everquest do not want to change their server to the SBC server because it wipes out their hundreds of days invested.
So, SOE has no incentive to do anything special with any company. Players of this game come from all over the world, so there is no concentration of players to make it worthwhile.
Okay real slow. There is never a model of MMRPGs. Everquest never a model.
Model is for Counterstrike only. SBC does it themselves. A person working for SBC goes to a store (Best Buy). They Buy Counterstrike. They go back to work. They install the software on their desktop. They register the server with Steam. There server is now available to every human being plugged into the internet. SBC is now the game server. See. Get it. No 3rd party. No VPN. Nada. Time to buy the game will be longer than to set up server.
I am dinging you because you are being dense. You seem to think that there is some company out there in this model. There is not. I will next post on the Everquest thing.
seven
If SBC wants to make money on this. You then have to make this server private. Okay so its passworded. Then SBC have to get a way to bill people. That seems doable for a nominal fee.
>>>>>Maybe this is really hard for you to understand, clearly you have no idea what you are talking about…..I have sold equipment to both LECs and CLECs and know the normal CO Colo requirements.
You are hard to understand. You said,
>> The PC you are typing on is ALL THAT IS REQUIRED. The LEC puts Counterstrike on your PC in your office on your LAN. BAM they are in business.
Why would the LEC put CT on you PC in your office on your LAN? Did you ask them to do this? OR do you really mean that you down loaded the software from the GSP?
Previously you said,
>>>>I have previously stated that servers located in LEC (as an example) with some special characteristics might be worth a couple of bucks.
Now you say,
>>> The model you are thinking of is what is required for Everquest.
Therefore, the server you were talking about in the LEC is what is required for Everquest?
>>> Maybe you are just being dense. SBC itself does this.
Maybe if you drop the personal dings, it would be easier to follow you thoughts. SBC does what?
>>> Do you not get that the Counterstrike model that we are discussing is a peer to peer model that involves payment of no money? People do it because they want to or like to? So, to repeat there are NO GAMING SERVICE PROVIDERS in this model. They do not exist.
Yes. I understand this, but again I don’t understand why a LEC would put this on your PC if it involves no payment of money? Be honest, you put it on there. Right?
>>>The place they do exist is in things like Everquest.
You are talking about Game Service Providers exist for Everquest, Right?
>>> Now since this is free today. Why would I pay SBC a couple of buck a month? If there were low ping servers, with consistent games, and anti-hack code on...that would be very nice. Its actually not bad as it is, but incrementally it could be better.
Are you still talking about Everquest or CounterStrike? I would assume Everquest since you previously said Counterstike is peer to peer. Further I would assume you are talking about a server in the LEC since you’ll be paying SBC.
At this point, I still don’t see the motivation for the provider to enhance the gamer experience. Additionally, I would like to say, if you want people to support you and understand your requirements, you would get a lot further sticking to the discussion at hand without all the personal dings. Put yourself in the shoes of those you are communicating with, it is very hard to weed through uncontrolled emotions, in addition to topic switching in the middle of a paragraph.
I agree with you. I would think that if a carrier wanted to provide that connectivity to themselves it would be straightforward. I think that is what I was trying to point out. That there is no need for a massive setup, in particular to get started with. 1 admin could manage several (5 - 7) servers if he/she were doing say 6 hour shifts with 4 shifts per day.
Unless this person was really cheap, I am not sure that the service would be worth it to the carrier.
I kinda agree with you. Most people here make things way too complicated. However, I see 2 issues .
1) to run a good server (10 players, 2 specs) you need about 1 Mbps bandwidth, in both directions. (I'm talking about UT. I think HL and Q3 based servers have similar requirement). ADSL and cable customers don't have that, their upstream is usually unsufficient to support a good server. besides that, it requires a 2nd PC in the house which is always turned on. (servers that are not 24/7 will be good as clanserver, but will not gain popularity as a public FFA server). I think newer games will not use more bandwidth, so after a few years, when we all have faster links to our house (I hope), this problem is solved.
2) gaming works sufficiently good if you have a proper ISP. One with a overprovisioned network with empty queues and no packetloss. However, it is not always good enough. As the average player gets better and better, they are all very much aware of the impact of ping and packetloss. Having the best connection possible would really be appreciated by many gamers. Besides that, once people get more serious, they want to play in competitions. In a competition you play random opponents, and find a server that is fair to both clans can be hard. Especially if those clans are far apart (e.g. a Finnish clan playing an Israeli clan in a eurocup game). Having some form of QoS would be very usefull.
I don't believe ISPs should or will provide gaming servers. A few specialized GSPs will, and they will have a hard time surviving financially. Added QoS would be nice. But setting up VPNs for that is totally overkill, won't give any QoS by itself, and is IMHO another clueless proposal. QoS should be done on the IP level (TOS/precedence/diffserv/etc). And a small amount of flat-fee QoS traffic should be part of the regualar DSL/cable subscription fees.
Maybe this is really hard for you to understand, clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.
The PC you are typing on is ALL THAT IS REQUIRED. The LEC puts Counterstrike on your PC in your office on your LAN. BAM they are in business.
I have sold equipment to both LECs and CLECs and know the normal CO Colo requirements.
Maybe you are just being dense. SBC itself does this. There are no partners, because there are no businesses to partner with. Servers are FREE. My son is not paying colo charges because he is getting no money for doing this on my desktop at my house. He is doing this so he and his friends have a local server. You seem to think this is big amount of equipment and hard to do. Its not. That is what we are trying to tell you. The model you are thinking of is what is required for Everquest. The Counterstrike model is that people in their homes are the game servers. For free and accessible by all (unless you create a passworded game).
Do you not get that the Counterstrike model that we are discussing is a peer to peer model that involves payment of no money? People do it because they want to or like to? So, to repeat there are NO GAMING SERVICE PROVIDERS in this model. They do not exist. The place they do exist is in things like Everquest.
Now since this is free today. Why would I pay SBC a couple of buck a month? If there were low ping servers, with consistent games, and anti-hack code on...that would be very nice. Its actually not bad as it is, but incrementally it could be better.
Take a look at these.
http://www.counter-strike.net/
http://www.dayofdefeat.net/
http://www.unrealtournament.com/ut2004/
These are the software companies in this space. They create the server registration software and the game software and turn it all loose on the internet. Beyond the initial game sales and some mod sales, they get no revenue. They also have minimal cost to support the game as they don't run servers.
The blogs and comments are the opinions only of the writers and do not reflect the views of Light Reading. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
To save this item to your list of favorite Light Reading content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.