bit-tech.net

Play the latest games, regardless of your hardware

Play the latest games, regardless of your hardware

OnLive's MicroConsole enables you to play games on your TV without the need for the latest graphics hardware.

Although many people are sceptical about the practicalities of gaming using cloud computing, a new firm called OnLive has unveiled a way of using the technology that aims to revolutionise the way in which people buy games and hardware. Put simply, OnLive lets you play new games remotely via the Web, regardless of your hardware. As such, you can run it on a low-spec PC or Mac, and there’s even an OnLive console for playing the games on your TV.

Unveiled at the Games Developers Conference (GDC) in San Francisco yesterday, OnLive works in a similar way to StreamMyGame, sending your controller actions upstream, and compressing the game’s visuals into a video stream and sending them downstream via the Internet. The difference with OnLive, however, is that all the games are held at OnLive’s game server centre, rather than on your own home PC.

The technology isn’t limited to ageing retro games, either. The list of launch titles features an impressive array of current, high-spec games, including F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin, Crysis Warhead and Burnout Paradise. A large number of developers have been announced as launch partners too, including big players such as EA, Ubisoft, THQ, Eidos, Codemasters and Epic, while independent developers such as 2D Boy are also supporting the technology.

OnLive’s was founded by Steve Perlman, who was also responsible for WebTV and had a hand in developing QuickTime for Apple as well. He described OnLive as “the most powerful game system in the world. No high-end hardware, no upgrades, no endless downloads, no discs, no recalls, no obsolescence. With OnLive, your video game experience is always state-of-the-art.”

Perlman also pointed out that OnLive “cleared the last remaining hurdle for the video games industry: effective online distribution.” He added that “by putting the value back into the games themselves and removing the reliance on expensive, short-lived hardware, we are dramatically shifting the economics of the industry.”

As well as offering you the ability to play games online, OnLive also says that it can take advantage of its system to eliminate the need to download or install games before you play. The company says that you can play any game instantly, and will also be offering gaming community features, which will include a section for showing off your best gaming clips.

OnLive can either be operated from a PC or Mac via a web browser, or you can use the OnLive MicroConsole to play the games on the TV. The latter supports two USB controllers, four wireless controllers and four Bluetooth headsets, and it also features HDMI and optical S/PDIF outputs.

OnLive will be launched in the US in summer this year, although you can also sign up to be a BETA tester if you fancy having a play with it before then. However, no plans have been announced to bring the technology to Europe yet.

Could OnLive offer a glimpse of the future when it comes to playing games, or will there always be a need to have all your own hardware? Would you be happy playing games using a video stream? There's already a discussion going on in the forums, so why not join in?

118 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
ch424 24th March 2009, 16:20 Quote
yeah, it sounds cool - I'll wait to see the quality though! I guess it's effectively streaming video, and H.264 at 4Mbit looks amazing, so I'm sure they can make it look good. There was a demo of far cry somewhere, but I can't find it now.
wafflesomd 24th March 2009, 16:43 Quote
That's pretty cool.

I think it would be great if you didn't have to buy any hardware though. The 'microconsole' may deter people.
Flibblebot 24th March 2009, 16:59 Quote
So, basically it's an updated version of the old Dragon's Lair laserdisc games? Just slightly more technical...

It'd need decent bandwidth both upstream and downstream to be able to work properly - not only to receive data from the service, but to send your mouse/keyboard movements back.

Can't see it working, tbh.
UncertainGod 24th March 2009, 17:01 Quote
Won't be able to emulate the local experience even if you have a fibre connection due to the round trip latency so it's doomed just like every other gamestreaming service.
[PUNK] crompers 24th March 2009, 17:52 Quote
i saw an article claiming that they are working at around 1 milisecond lag at the moment, and this is in beta. if thats true this could spell massive changes ahead.

if its just marketing jargon however i wouldn't be in the slightest bit surprised.
eeevan 24th March 2009, 18:36 Quote
I don't quite buy it either.

And yeah, 1ms of lag... Unless the server was in another room, you couldn't PING it in 1ms.


I call BS.
UncertainGod 24th March 2009, 18:47 Quote
that 1ms figure has to be bullshit, I can't talk to my ISP with only 1ms lag.

If a service like this was ever going to work it would have to be installed at the local exchange of your ISP and even then you are never going to get the same quality you do locally.
bahgger 24th March 2009, 19:12 Quote
1ms decoding of video.. not 1ms response time
[PUNK] crompers 24th March 2009, 20:05 Quote
that would make sense
UncertainGod 24th March 2009, 20:15 Quote
Regardless it's still never going to give a responsive enough experience for most games, 4x games and some rts yeah, but not the likes of battlefield.
RedDethX 25th March 2009, 04:02 Quote
I rather own an actual physical copy of the game I'm playing, or just use Steam, and have my own hardware, and tweak it the way I like tbh.
wafflesomd 25th March 2009, 04:47 Quote
We won't know how good it is until we see it perform.

The game could possibly 'buffer'. I don't exactly know how that would work, but let your imagination figure that out.

Who knows, if they do this right, it might be great. Remember when Steam totally sucked?
Stickeh 25th March 2009, 09:06 Quote
you can do this locally with some other service, i tried it and did manage to run cod4 and crysis on my 7" netbook, and even on my local network it sucked in terms of lag, im dubious to if this will actually work.
[PUNK] crompers 25th March 2009, 09:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickeh
you can do this locally with some other service, i tried it and did manage to run cod4 and crysis on my 7" netbook, and even on my local network it sucked in terms of lag, im dubious to if this will actually work.

did u need a beta key or is it just available to try?

edit: sorry misread thought you were talking about this service
Whalemeister 25th March 2009, 09:56 Quote
I'm still not 100% convinced that this will work that well, I mean just look at the marketing that goes with Citrix for example... It sounds great in theory but we all know how badly Citrix sucks!!!

Guess we'll just have to wait and see, it's certainly very interesting though and I bet there are some hardware manufactures out there quietly pooping their collective pants about this.
wuyanxu 25th March 2009, 11:00 Quote
call me sceptical, i don't believe this will work, at least not in UK where most low-end PC users (this is what they are marketing towards) have a download limit.

but i would like to have their video codec card, so i can play Crysis on my iPhone :P
Major 25th March 2009, 12:06 Quote
Just wait and see the bloody thing in action before you say "It's not going to work etc etc".

If it does work, then the hardware market will suffer a lot gaming wise.

For something that apparently isn't going to work, it's getting way too much media....

And no one would develop something for SEVEN years that isn't going to work, period.

Very good video of the founder explaining it here. He is even stating "You think this is impossible, but it's revolutionary, and it works etc". One thing I have spotted though it doesn't streaming at 1080p, only 720p and below.

http://uk.gamespot.com/shows/on-the-spot/?series=on-the-spot&event=on_the_spot20090324

The console is tiny, which is going to be an advantage to them. The problem might be game availability, but if this thing gets popular, then I'm sure you'll see nearly every recent game on there. They show this working in that video, and it works there, but it is a performance, so you never know. Momo seems pretty cool, very realistic.
UncertainGod 25th March 2009, 12:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major

And no one would develop something for SEVEN years that isn't going to work, period.

One word, Vista.
Major 25th March 2009, 12:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by UncertainGod
One word, Vista.

It does work, it just needs tweaking.

AKA Windows 7.

;)

Just seen the developers they have, wow, EA, Ubisoft, THQ, Take2, Eidos, Rockstar etc...

But like I stated before, availability will be key for this to work.
Major 25th March 2009, 12:45 Quote
1000 mile range from Datacentres for this to work, 1500 miles with fibre.
Shuriken 25th March 2009, 13:05 Quote
I think it will work based on my understanding of it:

None of the game data ever reaches the end user, only video and audio data. Essentially each user will have something like virtual machine running on the onlive servers, which accepts the input from keyboard/mouse/controller over the internet, renders the game on their servers and sends the audio/video feed back to the user through the net.

So input lag will be no greater than with normal online gaming, there could actually be a reduction in overall lag due to the onlive virtual machines having direct connections.

So as long as you're internet connection can stream the A/V feed, you could actually have a better gaming experience than with current online gaming (no framerate drops, etc)

It's ingenious to be honest, wish I'd thought of it.

Edit: http://www.onlive.com/about/team.html the developers are possibly the ugliest bunch of people ever though :p
CardJoe 25th March 2009, 13:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major

And no one would develop something for SEVEN years that isn't going to work, period.

Very good video of the founder explaining it here. He is even stating "You think this is impossible, but it's revolutionary, and it works etc". One thing I have spotted though it doesn't streaming at 1080p, only 720p and below.

I'm going to wait and see it working before I make up my mind, though my default POV is skeptiscism, but if those are key arguements for you then you've obviously never seen Dragons Den :p
Shuriken 25th March 2009, 13:39 Quote
It all rests on the ability of their new video codec, if it really can be compressed and decompressed as quick as they claim, and compress well enough to stream standard-def over 1.5mbps and hi-def over 5mbps, then I think it will change the way games are played.

Everything else is totally plausible, if the codec works I'm in.
Major 25th March 2009, 15:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
I'm going to wait and see it working before I make up my mind, though my default POV is skeptiscism, but if those are key arguements for you then you've obviously never seen Dragons Den :p

True, some people do develop silly ideas, and I remember someone selling their home, losing their family etc over an idea that was so stupid words cannot describe (think it was the US version).

But this is at a different level, if you know what I mean. Why would any big companies and ISPs partner up with an idea what doesn't work.

Some things do seem too good to be true sometimes, it is revolutionary. It they can make the consumer and business side of things work, they have a winner, and the money they make out of it once it becomes mainstream if it does will be quite amazing.

The only problem I can see, which has been brought up before, is consumers like physical media etc. People like to have a PS3 sitting below their TV, people like CD and DVDs sitting on a shelf, they like to feel what they have bought. When you own a PC and make it top end, you like to see the graphics card, it's your own creation, it's yours.

With this, it's slighty different, and some people might not like it. Some people do not like Steam due to this, and Steam downloads the game onto your PC. People spend thousands building a PC so they can have the maximum FPS on games, play Crysis at maximum level and boast about it. If everyone has maximum graphics, does that end the fun of maximum graphics? Will it change PCs as we know them?

Google did say the future of the PC will be server based (or something like that), now I see where they are coming from.
Shuriken 25th March 2009, 15:34 Quote
I think there will be rejection from people who like having the bleeding edge of technology and the bragging rights the come with it. But I think the majority of gamers can't/won't afford a few grand a year to keep up with this, so they buy mid-range systems, these are the kinds of gamers that this will appeal to.
mclean007 25th March 2009, 15:53 Quote
I'll accept that a smooth 720p framerate is possible with reasonable image quality over a 5 meg connection, and that - with sufficient processing horsepower - it may be possible to compress and decompress video with sufficiently little latency to make it playable (though 1 ms is, I suspect, total pie in the sky), but network latency alone is likely in my view to kill this. Anyone who has played an online game will be familiar with lag, but it is generally manageable because at least the inputs and graphics are being handled locally, so you have the perception that game controls are immediate. If the game is streamed over a normal broadband connection, that 100ms or whatever will make for nasty sluggish controls. As such, I really can't see this taking off unless a major overhaul of the domestic broadband infrastructure reduces network latency to a much lower, and reliably low, level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flibblebot
It'd need decent bandwidth both upstream and downstream to be able to work properly - not only to receive data from the service, but to send your mouse/keyboard movements back.
The amount of bandwidth required to send control input data upstream will be trivial (a few kb/s tops), so (aside from the network latency issue) any reasonable domestic broadband connection should be fine.
s3v3n 25th March 2009, 15:57 Quote
For RTS games I can play comfortably with lag up to about 1 second. For RPG games I can play comfortably up to around 200-250ms. For FPS games I can play comfortably up to around 150ms. Now I don't mean competitively, but if it was single player mode I don't see how it could cause you trouble. Plus the developer can introduce some compensation. Very little bandwidth is needed up stream, mostly downstream. It would be similar to a game of CS while streaming high quality video.
Like said before, it's all about the codec. They would need some beefy encoder on the server side that will encode it extremely fast, leave great quality, and have it small enough to be streamed. Also, what about frame rate? You might not need 60fps for RTS/RPG but you definently would want more than 23.97fps for shooters and even driving games.
Major 25th March 2009, 16:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mclean007
Anyone who has played an online game will be familiar with lag, but it is generally manageable because at least the inputs and graphics are being handled locally,

Isn't it like?

Game -> PC -> Unmodded Game Server in some unknown location -> ISP

And this

Watching streamed game controlled by you -> Modded Server in ISP?
mclean007 25th March 2009, 16:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by s3v3n
For RTS games I can play comfortably with lag up to about 1 second. For RPG games I can play comfortably up to around 200-250ms. For FPS games I can play comfortably up to around 150ms. Now I don't mean competitively, but if it was single player mode I don't see how it could cause you trouble. Plus the developer can introduce some compensation. Very little bandwidth is needed up stream, mostly downstream. It would be similar to a game of CS while streaming high quality video.
Like said before, it's all about the codec. They would need some beefy encoder on the server side that will encode it extremely fast, leave great quality, and have it small enough to be streamed. Also, what about frame rate? You might not need 60fps for RTS/RPG but you definently would want more than 23.97fps for shooters and even driving games.
The issue is though that when you play online with say 200ms ping, the control inputs and graphics engine are still running locally, so when you move, look around etc. your screen updates immediately. With this system, you move your control stick, the movement gets communicated to a server, the server moves your character or whatever, and 200ms later you get to see the result on screen. Even for an RTS you want a reasonably responsive control interface - imagine trying to use Windows if your pointer moved a quarter of a second after you moved your mouse, or characters appeared 200ms after you typed them. Not fun, and it would be far worse with games where the whole POINT is fun. I'm happy to be proved wrong, but I remain incredibly sceptical.
mclean007 25th March 2009, 16:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major
Quote:
Originally Posted by mclean007
Anyone who has played an online game will be familiar with lag, but it is generally manageable because at least the inputs and graphics are being handled locally,

Isn't it like?

Game -> PC -> Unmodded Game Server in some unknown location -> ISP

And this

Watching streamed game controlled by you -> Modded Server in ISP?
I don't really follow what you're saying to be honest. The basic difference between this and a "normal" multiplayer game is that in a normal multiplayer game the game is running on your PC (hence immediacy of control input), and is synchronising your actions with those of other players, whereas in this case you will basically be connecting your controller and TV to a PC many miles away and controlling it remotely.

The "lag" in say an FPS is where your PC has assumed someone kept running the same way so displayed them at location X, but in fact they had changed direction and were at location Y but that information hadn't had time to reach the server and then be pushed to your PC yet, so when you shot at X you missed.

The lag on the streamed games will be much more unpleasant, because every action you take will need to make a round trip to the server before it updates. You press the fire button, 200ms later (which is a long time in an FPS) your onscreen character appears to fire his gun.
sotu1 25th March 2009, 16:17 Quote
i for one would absolutely love to see this work. There are doubts it will work but i'd give it my full support because it is ambitious and could be something really special.
wafflesomd 25th March 2009, 16:18 Quote
Why is the front page always days behind the news?

I'm not going to comment on how well the system works, because neither I or any of you know how well this works.
mclean007 25th March 2009, 16:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wafflesomd
Why is the front page always days behind the news?

I'm not going to comment on how well the system works, because neither I or any of you know how well this works.
Fair enough, but I know how well my broadband connection works, and (though I'm happy to be proved wrong) I'm remaining hugely sceptical.
Major 25th March 2009, 16:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mclean007
I don't really follow what you're saying to be honest.

Neither do i, was just some crazy idea. :)
Bauul 25th March 2009, 16:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mclean007
The issue is though that when you play online with say 200ms ping, the control inputs and graphics engine are still running locally, so when you move, look around etc. your screen updates immediately. With this system, you move your control stick, the movement gets communicated to a server, the server moves your character or whatever, and 200ms later you get to see the result on screen. Even for an RTS you want a reasonably responsive control interface - imagine trying to use Windows if your pointer moved a quarter of a second after you moved your mouse, or characters appeared 200ms after you typed them. Not fun, and it would be far worse with games where the whole POINT is fun. I'm happy to be proved wrong, but I remain incredibly sceptical.

Exactly. Anyone who has used Citrix (I'm using it now) knows the problem of this.

For those who don't know Citirx, it's exactly the same principal but for Office applications instead of games. You'd think Office apps would be no worries, but you have no idea just how infuritating it is to click on something and it take between 100 and 250ms to respond. It feels as though your computer is running through custard, and that's simply because of the time it takes for the electrons to travel from your PC to the Citrix server and back again. A dedicated billion gigbit line can't speed light up, by the laws of physics there's always going to be a lag between mouse/keyboard input and screen update. Even just typing words is slow. You press a button, and it doesn't appear on the screen for a second, so you're always waiting for the screen to update.

For anything quicker than a turn based strategy game, it's going to get extremely annoying extremely quickly.
Turbotab 25th March 2009, 16:43 Quote
The directors at the various ISPs must have sprouted a few more grey hairs, at the thought of even greater pressure on their bandwidth. The main issue I have with idea, is the problem of my normally adequate 8mb Tiscali line, that slows to a crawl between 6 to 10pm. Given that most of us are on shared 50:1 or 25:1 connections, I imagine this would be a common problem. Does anybody know if these streamed games will have any anti-aliasing? I see that the BETA is US only, any UKers been able to successfully sign up?
dyzophoria 25th March 2009, 17:07 Quote
i think everybody should just wait for it. if it fails, laugh about it in the forums, if it works laugh about it still in the forums. lol
mclean007 25th March 2009, 17:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbotab
The directors at the various ISPs must have sprouted a few more grey hairs, at the thought of even greater pressure on their bandwidth. The main issue I have with idea, is the problem of my normally adequate 8mb Tiscali line, that slows to a crawl between 6 to 10pm. Given that most of us are on shared 50:1 or 25:1 connections, I imagine this would be a common problem. Does anybody know if these streamed games will have any anti-aliasing? I see that the BETA is US only, any UKers been able to successfully sign up?

I imagine anti-aliasing should be no problem. It looks like the servers are pretty powerful so they should be more than capable, and AA won't add any network latency.
harveypooka 25th March 2009, 17:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by crompers
i saw an article claiming that they are working at around 1 milisecond lag at the moment, and this is in beta. if thats true this could spell massive changes ahead.

if its just marketing jargon however i wouldn't be in the slightest bit surprised.

I think they're saying 1ms on top of your ping, not 1ms connection!
wuyanxu 25th March 2009, 18:04 Quote
i want 1920x1200 resolution and i also want 16xCSQAA in every game if i have to pay for the broadbands, don't think this will take off until 50Mbps broadbands are common and cheap.

speaking of input lag, it's unbearable. eg, i find it annoying that in Sins, even when connected to the LAN server via 100Mbps RJ45, still get a small lag when clicking to build stuff.
so it's almost impossible to eliminate input lag in this cloud-computing idea.

great news for netbook users and console players. but useless for us PC gamers, those who enjoy graphics, AA and micro-shuttering as much as gameplay.

also, what about server load? wouldn't 6pm to 9pm be fully loaded? wouldn't that introduce low frame rates?
cyrilthefish 25th March 2009, 18:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
I'm going to wait and see it working before I make up my mind, though my default POV is skeptiscism
Pretty much the same view for me, i'm holding back judgement until i can actually see it working... but i just can't see how they're going to get around the internet lag no matter how good the software is :/

Bandwidth-wise it makes me think of the differences between VNC / citrix and remote desktop / remote X-server connections: the former essentially sends raw compressed screen data over the network and is quite BW intensive, while the latter ones are more 'rendering on the remote system' way of doing things.

I may be proved wrong, but it still seems a bit too good to be true IMHO, one of those 'good idea but not really workable in real life' kind of things
harveypooka 25th March 2009, 18:07 Quote
I guess that this is a new technology and should be seen as that, not merely an extension of already available stuff.

If they've been working on it for 7 years and claim that it introduces only 1ms of extra latency, let's hold them to it.

But hold off from the snap judgements! :)
HourBeforeDawn 25th March 2009, 18:48 Quote
huh I wonder what the delay would be between saying pressing a button and then the action happening, I mean it has to be encoded and streamed right? or is it sorta doing something to FRAPS when you record videos, either way this sound potentially promising but at the same time a killer for the rest of the market.
Turbotab 25th March 2009, 19:11 Quote
Being cynical, you have to ask why a similar service is not available or being trailed in Japan. They have had affordable & ultra-fast 100mb connections for a few years, love games and are a wealthy nation. A far better testing environment than the US and its largely stone-age internet speeds, yes Atlantic brothers, the UK also knows your pain.
aggies11 25th March 2009, 19:45 Quote
Latency is the make or break issue on this thing, especially considering twitch shooters like Crysis or FEAR.

On my cable modem, to the ISP's network it's a minium 10-20ms. Going outside their network, is around 30ms at the best case.

So assuming best case of 30ms latency times for the network connection, and even ignoring any processing times, display times, etc, 30ms latency is roughly what you see at around a 30fps framerate.

So bestcase, under ideal (and likely unrealistic) circumstances, you get the responsiveness of a game running at 30fps. Which isn't that bad, and is certainly palatable for many people. But if you slip up to 40ms, that gives you the response time of 25fps which starts to dip into dangerous territory. At 50ms, you have the equivalent of 20fps which falls into the range of noticable and often unplayable, especially for a more twitchy game.

If the game was designed for this, you could add in client side prediction (like online games do), to make the game appear more responsive, but that defeats the whole purpose as it's all about everything on the server and no game code on the client.

In some ways, the infamous Phantom was a more likely proposition then this service. That being said, the proof is in the pudding and so we have to wait and see.
wuyanxu 25th March 2009, 20:12 Quote
if you guys in US want to try this out, there's a beta signup
http://www.gamingbits.com/content/view/5432/1/
perplekks45 25th March 2009, 20:38 Quote
I couldn't be more sceptical about anything else but I'd love to be proven wrong. [Same as most people here I guess]
Shuriken 25th March 2009, 21:27 Quote
This has been playing on my mind all day, so I went and got a bit geeky:

I figured they'll have good servers, with all the money they've put in and the support from major software companies. If I ping google.co.uk I get a response time of about 35ms, so that seemed like a good starting point.

I do doubt their codec can really do it in 1ms, so for the purpose of my experiment I've assumed 5ms to encode on their almighty cloud of servers, and 20ms to decode locally.

This means a total round trip latency of 60ms.

BEHOLD: OnLive v0.00001 alpha!

This is a little script I whipped up to demonstrate what key board latency feels like, you can choose the latency at the top (default 60ms) and move the black square with the arrow keys.

I find 60ms is just on the limit of ok, anything above would be unplayable. But of course if their codec really is as good as they say then we could see 40ms (maybe 30ms with amazing servers) which would be fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aggies11

On my cable modem, to the ISP's network it's a minium 10-20ms. Going outside their network, is around 30ms at the best case.

So assuming best case of 30ms latency times for the network connection, and even ignoring any processing times, display times, etc, 30ms latency is roughly what you see at around a 30fps framerate.

Latency and frame rates are two entirely different things, if the video was streamed at 60fps on a horrible connection (200ms) the video would still display at 60fps, just each frame will appear 200ms after it was sent.
UncertainGod 25th March 2009, 21:33 Quote
Shuriken that is an excellent demonstration, now we just need to wait until people start reporting back what video and sound quality is like and some accurate figures on how much bandwidth it rapes at 720p.
perplekks45 25th March 2009, 21:34 Quote
I like your littel test thing. If it is accurate I could live with 100ms, easily.
Shuriken 25th March 2009, 21:36 Quote
Cheers ;) although sometimes I do worry I don't use my time wisely

I think it will do a lot better in the US as our connections are all so limited, streaming that much data would cause the old "fair use policy" to be called in to play a lot :(

If the video from GDC was as real as they claim (streaming live over a broadband connection from a server 50 miles away) then I think it will be amazing.
Shuriken 25th March 2009, 21:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by perplekks45
I like your littel test thing. If it is accurate I could live with 100ms, easily.

Thanks, although I couldn't live with 100ms, it feels really laggy to me (and I'm not any kind of hardcore gamer) feels too much like its moving on key-up instead of key-down :?
Nicb 25th March 2009, 21:45 Quote
I want nothing to do with this! To much to talk about but in no way will I support this. Doomed to fail I believe.
wafflesomd 25th March 2009, 21:48 Quote
I signed up for the beta.

If I get in, I'll let you know how it goes.

+1 to the awesome psy track that plays on the homepage.
knyghtryda 25th March 2009, 21:48 Quote
jeez... I could just see lag on this thing being an absolute killer. I'm not talking about any sort of lag on the server side, as that can be taken care of with more hardware. The lag through the "cloud" though could be pretty horrible. You might get some great periods where lag is 20-30ms, but what about when the action heats up and all of the sudden your ping times hit 100ms+? At that point its like playing through molasses. I'm not a fan of this idea simply because it takes all control away from the consumer. We don't need another method of content control, especially one as serious as this.
Shuriken 25th March 2009, 21:51 Quote
I'm tempted to apply for the web developer job they've got going, it'd be quite a move from England's westcountry to California, but I'm getting more and more sick of this country by the day anyway...
Major 25th March 2009, 22:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuriken
Thanks, although I couldn't live with 100ms, it feels really laggy to me (and I'm not any kind of hardcore gamer) feels too much like its moving on key-up instead of key-down :?

100ms you can feel the lag slighty., 80ms would be fine though.
cyrilthefish 25th March 2009, 23:53 Quote
Bouncing about the internet today, overall concensus is starting to show that this may be some sort of viral ad / vapour-ware thing similar to the phantom console... I'm starting to believe them to be honest
wharrad 26th March 2009, 02:29 Quote
Yes!!! A valid reason for the Killer NIC!


( :) Didn't actually buy one really)
wafflesomd 26th March 2009, 02:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrilthefish
Bouncing about the internet today, overall concensus is starting to show that this may be some sort of viral ad / vapour-ware thing similar to the phantom console... I'm starting to believe them to be honest

Huh?

From what I can tell, this is real....

Where do you get your news?
trati629 26th March 2009, 04:36 Quote
I am going to wait until the results from the open beta has come in to find out if the service works. the response time on the demo given at the press con did not look bad at all and they were 50 miles away from the server, they have even tested it in Oz (it was playable but the lag was defiantly visible. With 3 main server locations in the US covering the east,middle and west the us is covered and I don't see there being to many problems for them. I do how ever see problems with the service if it came to the UK, I believe that one maybe two sever locations would be needed to handle the load because a lot of us have expensive high bandwidth connections but my gripe is that the infrastructure and lack of funding the connection is mostly delivered by ageing copper at home I have a theoretical speed of up to 8mbps but only get 2-4 on average the service would be in constant lag. There is hope with testing for fibre in Kent but it will be years before most of the country will see it.
I would love this service so much but the issues with the UK's copper jungle is a crippling factor.
aggies11 26th March 2009, 06:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuriken

Latency and frame rates are two entirely different things, if the video was streamed at 60fps on a horrible connection (200ms) the video would still display at 60fps, just each frame will appear 200ms after it was sent.

This is true, I was waiting for someone to bring that up ;) However on a traditional setup, the two are rather tightly coupled. There is actual response time lag in regular pc games. A frame that takes 30ms to be rendered/drawn, by very definition must contain a picture from at least 30ms ago.So you must wait that long before you can see the result on screen of your input/actions/keypresses. As framerate drops, frame time increases, and so does input lag/response time.

So one can use as a quick approximation, the input lag at different framerates to get a feeling for how this would impact, say a twitch shooter. Personally, when framerate dips it's not so much the "slideshow" that I have a problem with, but rather the accompanying increase in input lag. At around 20fps and lower (50ms response time) is where it starts to get rather annoying personally.

If they could miraculously achieve a soid 30ms, then that would give you the input lag that typically accompanies ~30fps, which could be more then acceptable.
Journeyer 26th March 2009, 07:29 Quote
Hm, the technology is interesting, but it's not for me though. I actually enjoy building high-end systems, tweaking them and swapping components about as often as most people swap socks. :D

Another thing, though I don't know how copyright laws affect logos and the like, but OnLive's logo is remarkably similar to that of www.nextgentel.no which I find weird (insert made up conspiracy theory here).
azrael- 26th March 2009, 09:03 Quote
Last I checked it wasn't 1st April yet. You guys are waaaaaay to early with this story! :p
Slyporkie 26th March 2009, 09:10 Quote
One question i haven't seen posted here though is...

At the moment you have to layout big cash to play the latest shiny new games. A monster rig to push those pixels in Far Cry 2 or Crysis.

Are they going to charge a straight fee per game per user, or are you going to have to fork out extra cash if you use more system resources on the "Power Cloud".

Patent Pending on Power Cloud, by the by... ;)
Shuriken 26th March 2009, 09:15 Quote
I'd just assumed it would be a flat monthly subscription fee for all users, plus the cost to buy each game
[PUNK] crompers 26th March 2009, 09:36 Quote
you can choose to either rent or buy games, i've seen it suggested that pc gamers may ending up using the rental service as "try before you buy"

seems to me that if a monthly fee is needed torrents will still fill the try before you buy void
Blademrk 26th March 2009, 10:29 Quote
I have trouble streaming a video from YouTube over my connection, never mind streaming a game.
wuyanxu 26th March 2009, 14:23 Quote
if i pay the monthly fee for it, then i demand the equivalent computing power available to me all the time (just like my PC)
...
therefore, if i can't do Fold@Home on it just like my PC while it's idle, then why should i pay for the monthly fee?

so without F@H, i'd probably spectate Crysis or the next most demanding game 24/7, or im not getting my money's worth of computing hours.
UncertainGod 26th March 2009, 14:36 Quote
There is a good article on Eurogamer about how this service cannot possibly work but what made me lose interest is when I finally watched the side by side comparison of video quality, why on earth would anyone want their games to look that crap?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/gdc-why-onlive-cant-possibly-work-article
Da_Rude_Baboon 26th March 2009, 16:36 Quote
If you invented a codec that can compress live HD video in real time and stream it across the internet with a 1ms overhead then why on earth would you aim it at gamers?

I wish them good luck but the article posted above sums up (and adds to) my initial scepticism.
Stickeh 26th March 2009, 17:00 Quote
Da_Rude_Baboon's cracked it!

If this DID actually work, we would have seen it in other mediums (pornography) before gaming.
CardJoe 26th March 2009, 17:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by UncertainGod
There is a good article on Eurogamer about how this service cannot possibly work but what made me lose interest is when I finally watched the side by side comparison of video quality, why on earth would anyone want their games to look that crap?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/gdc-why-onlive-cant-possibly-work-article

Tim reckons that article is full of ****, because a lot of the hardware stuff is just not properly researched.

Me, I'm sure that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo will just swat this thing with a marketting push anyway - so it doesn't matter if it works or not. Too many people have too much to lose by letting it succeed, including Intel and AMD and Nvidia.
UncertainGod 26th March 2009, 18:02 Quote
I'd like to know which parts Tim thinks of a bullshit.
aggies11 26th March 2009, 19:12 Quote
Lookin at another angle, if the 720p stream requires a 4Mbps connection, thats around 1.75GB of data per hour. Anyone on capped connection will feel the hurt of that pretty quick. My lovely Canadian ISP would allow me just over 30hrs of gaming per month, not counting using the internet for anything else. Only gaming 1hr a day?
eek 26th March 2009, 19:30 Quote
Sounds like a fantastic idea. I really hope it works. Lag is a serious issue for online FPSs games. One benefit of having everything hosted on the same servers is that lag between player will be minimal (i.e. no need for compensation) so the only lag that needs to be worried about is getting the content displayed locally.

Lets face it, cloud computing really is the way that mainstream computing is going to go. There is no need for most users to have uber powerful machines as even the cheapest computer is enough for 99% of tasks (net, office, video decoding).

I can't see this being the thing that really bucks the trend in terms of users running programs remotely, but it's a step in the right direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickeh
Da_Rude_Baboon's cracked it!

If this DID actually work, we would have seen it in other mediums (pornography) before gaming.
lol, not sure that 1ms decoding is really a requirement when broadcasting video! I'm not too concerned that the live feed coming from some student house that happens to be filled purely with 18 year old blondes that are 'up for anything' has a fews seconds delay
ch424 26th March 2009, 21:46 Quote
Half of that article is BS. You've been able to get h.264 encoding hardware that works with extremely low latency for ages now. There are companies that make IP CCTV cameras that encode 1080i video to h.264 in real time, and the chips they use to do it don't even need heatsinks. Even some mobile phones encode h.264 in realtime.

I'm not saying that onlive is definitely real, I'm just saying that h.264 in real time is pretty easy now.
aggies11 27th March 2009, 07:16 Quote
Coincidentally there seems to be a similar product recently announced, aimed at Game Developers allowing them Remote access to their (expensive) Game Development kits.

Press Release:
http://www.animationmagazine.net/pressbox/2009/03/spawn-labs-uses-mako-hd-h264-codec-to-enable-real-time-remote-access-to-game-console-dev-kits-from-a.html

They cite a 70ms "end to end" latency best case. Using a fancy new "zero latency" h.264 realtime encoding codec. I'm not exactly sure what "zero latency" (or 1ms latency that the Onlive guy quotes) actually means. Realtime encoding certainly exists, and at 60fps each frame has to be encoded at least as fast as ~16ms or so. But 1ms as frame encode time seems a little strange, as that means it could theoretically handle a 1000fps stream, which seems a tad fantastical. That being said the "MAKO-HD™ H.264 ultra-low-latency codec" quotes the figure in it's literature, so it must mean *something*, although I'm not exactly sure what else it could be?

Edit: A little more digging, from the HaiVision (creators fo the MAKO codec) site: "Zero latency" can be considered within systems that operate assuring hand eye coordination (below 90ms) or operating within a blink of an eye (100 ms). That answers that question. It is also very likely what the OnLive people will be using and would explain the slight misquote.

Still, while 70ms is considered enough for hand-eye coordination, I'd imagine it's still something very perceptible when playing a twitch based video-game. 70ms input lag ("mouse lag"?) is around what you see at a framerate of 15fps. I certainly find that unplayable in terms of response lag.

For less then twitchy games though, this certainly seems feasable.
perplekks45 27th March 2009, 14:28 Quote
Interesting, aggies. Thanks for that.
So it'll look smooth but feel like 15 FPS? Not nice. :(

About encoding HD stuff in real-time: Badaboom, anyone?
Jenny_Y8S 27th March 2009, 14:46 Quote
There are coding techniques that will reduce the "feel" of input lag, but I doubt they are using them.

For example, they could render and transmit each screen larger than needed (IE add a bit of overscan). By pan & scanning in real time on the client you "may" be able to fool some players that there is less lag. You'd have to have sophistacted routines to tweak the scaling of the image, but it's the same sort of techniques used when created panoramic photos or correcting wide angle distortion so nothing complicated really.

You could also zoom in & out of the image to create the impression of immediate feedback for W & S keys.

A&D straffing would be a simple pan, parallax would go out the window but again, I'd say it could improve the feel.
Bauul 27th March 2009, 15:09 Quote
The hardware debate is a genuine question. I've seen a few articles now questionning their ability to recieve input for and render a million games of Crysis at the same time, whilst simulataniously encoding the output to a coded video and transmitting it across the globe. Not only would their bandwidth costs be astronomical, is it even remotely possible to build server farms that can process such an insane amount of graphical horsepower without literally buying a new graphics card for every new potential gamer? I know the power of economics of scaling but this is something else.
Stickeh 27th March 2009, 15:11 Quote
Good point Bauul, i had thought of it, and it is a serious question, what computers can render Crysis at great resolution? And how many versions of crysis are they running? One. So thats a computer each...
Shuriken 27th March 2009, 15:37 Quote
But then most people who play games like crysis at max also aim for uber high resolution, what kind of processing power do you need to run crysis at max settings but 720p resolution?
Bauul 27th March 2009, 15:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuriken
But then most people who play games like crysis at max also aim for uber high resolution, what kind of processing power do you need to run crysis at max settings but 720p resolution?

Resolution is less important than which of the engine's features are turned on with something like Crysis. If you're rendering hugely complex shadows, shaders, physics, lighting, textures etc. etc, that you need to output fewer pixels at the end isn't going to improve things much, especially when 720 isn't exactly a tiny resolution. We're not talking 320x240 here. Besides, any reduction in resolution output is completely eclipsed by the need to encode every single frame to video as you go along.
Major 27th March 2009, 15:58 Quote
Bauul, this isn't going to be sent global, it's going to be set ups of servers in Data centres all over the world, they have a radius of 1000 miles, and if this does go massive, I am guessing it will be far less than that, and there will servers all over the place for this.

Found on Google they received funding from Warner Brothers etc a couple years ago of $10m+, and that was from one funding, they have plenty of money, and I don't see why companies would fund a company with a product that doesn't work.
Bauul 27th March 2009, 16:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major
Bauul, this isn't going to be sent global, it's going to be set ups of servers in Data centres all over the world, they have a radius of 1000 miles, and if this does go massive, I am guessing it will be far less than that, and there will servers all over the place for this.

Found on Google they received funding from Warner Brothers etc a couple years ago of $10m+, and that was from one funding, they have plenty of money, and I don't see why companies would fund a company with a product that doesn't work.

That still doesn't answer the question of how they are going to fund the hardware. Regardless of how many or few server farms they have, unless they've invented some crazy new hardware us mortals know nothing about, if they want to run Crysis on maximum for each player (which I've heard they do), they will need about £400 worth of core consumer priced components (at the very least) for every single player. And in three years time (at the very most) all that will be redundant and they'll have to buy it all over again. My idea of server-sized hardware may be wrong, but as far as I can tell, the sheer cost of maintaining a decent gaming rig for every player who ever wanted to use them is going to be absolutely huge. Regardless of how much investment they have, if they want to break a profit they'll have to earn enough money to buy every player a new high-end gaming rig every few years, even before covering the cost of the games themselves. I'm sorry, it just doesn't seem to add up for me.
freedom810 27th March 2009, 16:11 Quote
I think it is good that this is not going too hyped up, that way when it is released people will be surprised, much like the PS1 release and the start to sony's gaming division. Who knows if its going to work or not only time will tell.

As for hardware, if you already own a computer you dont need the little console thingy to stream the games, you only need it if you want to stream games on you TV.
mclean007 27th March 2009, 16:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bauul
Besides, any reduction in resolution output is completely eclipsed by the need to encode every single frame to video as you go along.
They claim this adds negligible overhead as they have developed bespoke hardware to encode. Crysis probably will need one GPU per player, but they will be banking on not everyone being simultaneously online. Their press conference video mentions virtualisation so multiple instances of lower end games can be run on one physical server. I guess this might be built into their pricing model, with e.g. Crysis costing more to buy/rent than say World of Goo.

I guess one big problem is that the need for proximity to servers means that even after a worldwide roll-out they won't be able to benefit from time zone differences by repurposing US servers to cover Europe during the European evening peak, then repurposing Euro servers to cover the US during the US evening / Euro middle of the night.

They must have a pretty chunky data pipe to stream 5 Mbit / sec (actually a bit less - they say that's the minimum rated broadband connection you'd need for 720p, but actual peak throughput will be a little less, and average may be less again) to thousands of gamers simultaneously, but that is doable. Latency, scalability, hardware costs and bespoke software / hardware design are FAR bigger issues for these guys.

@Jenny yes there are techniques to fudge the input lag issue, but they claim their microconsole and PC / Mac plugins are effectively dumb terminals, so I doubt they are using them. Also transmitting an overscanned image to allow scanning would increase their bandwidth issues, and that sort of thing (e.g. pan/zoom instead of true parallax movement) looks pretty horrible and smeary - gives me headaches, like the oldschool Doom 1/2 games with their skewy parallax adjustments when you move. Can give a reasonable approximation of camera rotation though (i.e. turning, looking up/down). Anyway, it is only a hack - it doesn't really fix the issue.
mclean007 27th March 2009, 16:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bauul
That still doesn't answer the question of how they are going to fund the hardware. Regardless of how many or few server farms they have, unless they've invented some crazy new hardware us mortals know nothing about, if they want to run Crysis on maximum for each player (which I've heard they do), they will need about £400 worth of core consumer priced components (at the very least) for every single player. And in three years time (at the very most) all that will be redundant and they'll have to buy it all over again. My idea of server-sized hardware may be wrong, but as far as I can tell, the sheer cost of maintaining a decent gaming rig for every player who ever wanted to use them is going to be absolutely huge. Regardless of how much investment they have, if they want to break a profit they'll have to earn enough money to buy every player a new high-end gaming rig every few years, even before covering the cost of the games themselves. I'm sorry, it just doesn't seem to add up for me.
I share your scepticism, but the hardware cost is mitigated to an extent by the fact that not everyone will be playing simultaneously. To give a good experience, though, they will need to ensure sufficient server capacity to allow every player to play what he wants, when he wants, which means all that hardware sitting idle during quiet periods just to ensure they can cope when they get slammed during the 6-9pm peak.
aggies11 27th March 2009, 17:08 Quote
re: Bauul

I think current MMO's plan for peak load to be %30 of their customer base at any time. This might be comparable then. They don't need enough gaming rigs for every customer, merely enough to service whoever is currently online.

Plus of those online, only a certain percentage will be playing the most demanding games.

Even despite all that, the costs still seem pretty heafty. Especially when you take into account bandwidth.

I wonder if they might use an "On Demand" / "pay as you play" style pricing model/option? Since their costs seem to be tied based on how much time you play (bandwidth + timeslices on the hardware) it would make sense to charge accordingly.

I still don't see this as more of a novelty for the high end games though. If you want to play Crysis to beging with, or play twitchy FPSs anything more then casually, having your own box is likely the way to go. This is something that would seem better suited to the more mainstream titles with wider appeal. And it would make it easier on them as the performance requirements would probably be lessened. Less Crysis and more Starcraft II?
Flibblebot 27th March 2009, 22:54 Quote
You can't really compare OnLive to a MMO, though, because the MMO servers aren't really doing anything more complicated than object handling - what monster is where, what map you're on, what treasure is around, etc. The rendering of the actual world (i.e. how you visualise those objects) is done by the client PC not the server.

An OnLive server has to do everything - management, rendering, streaming, everything. And that effectively means the equivalent of one (high powered) PC per connected user.

They also need to price themselves at a sensible price point. After all, if Joe Q Public works out that it'll cost them $100 to complete Crysis, then they'll just go out and buy themselves a copy of the game. Of course, they'll probably forget about the $1500-worth of PC they'll need to play the game, but that won't be a part of the "gut reaction" to the pricing model.

I'll be surprised if this (a) lives up to the hype; and (b) actually gets any paying customers, playing more than just Tetris at 3pm - but I'm willing to be surprised.

Let's just say that I'm not holding my breath ;)
wuyanxu 28th March 2009, 13:32 Quote
just been reading this article
Quote:
Reason #1 - "Fair Access Policy."
Reason #2 - Real vs. Test Lab Performance.
Reason #3 - "My Internet Connection's Fallen and It Can't Get Up."
Reason #4 - R.I.P. Mod Scene.
Reason #5 - Privacy Issues.
Reason #6 - You Don't Own Anything.

reason 1 is very annoying problem in UK, and as Gadget Show on Five said, 99% of ISP has it.

reason 2 has been discussed here.
this also raised point of 720p video is being compressed, so major quality lost if it is being scaled up to say 24 or 30 inch.

reason 3 is of most concern, almost everyone now uses a Router, so the what if your sistor starts steaming video on your 5Mbps connection? or what if that Folding just completed, you'd have to live through 1minute of laggyness?

reason 4 is quite sad for those such as Garry, but im sure offline version should keep it going. alternatively, they may find a way to provide it, always keep mods up-to-date, similar to Steam.

reason 5 meh from me.

reason 6 depends on personal views, i prefer to backup all my savedgames, so this might make it difficult for me.

it all comes down to the internet connection and whether you are willing to accept quality loss. it's great for console crowds, but may not look so good for us PC gamers
Star*Dagger 28th March 2009, 16:08 Quote
Welcome to the Future of Gaming. This is big.
sui_winbolo 28th March 2009, 16:23 Quote
This is going to be a bandwidth hog. Unless people are running QoS on their home connections, say goodbye to multiple users using the internet.

Not everyone has powerful connections either. I only have a 1.5Mbps download speed and 500Kbps upload. This is sufficient for Xbox Live and whatever else I do. However, sending all the video data, sound data, and playing with other multiple users. Am I going to have a lag free gaming experience comparable to my 360?

Yeah I doubt it.

Netflix Instant view is a good example of where this type of technology is at. I've tried the trial for 2 weeks, and to be honest, it didn't work that well for me. My connection doubled the minimum requirements and I couldn't get more than "2 bars" and most of the time it was at "1 bar". To give an idea what that looks like, imagine a Youtube video being blown up to fill the screen. Artifacts everywhere! It leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

A way to get around this problem for Netflix is to allow a buffer override, where I could let the video buffer for a longer time to allow a better quality playback.

Instead I got the video instantly, 2 minutes into watching the video the playback would stop and it would throttle the quality down to "1 bar".

Overall I wasn't happy with my experience.

If I had a faster connection, say 5Mbps or so, I could see this OnLive service working for older titles. Say Xbox & PS2 era games.
Ending Credits 28th March 2009, 20:29 Quote
Gaming on an external computer = fail
Real-time life robot battle with user control = win
perplekks45 28th March 2009, 20:48 Quote
@ sui_winbolo:

It doesn't change a thing if it's old games or new games. The video stream remains 720p.
wafflesomd 28th March 2009, 21:11 Quote
Well they've certainly succeeded in getting people to talk about it.

I'm hoping this works out.
sui_winbolo 28th March 2009, 23:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by perplekks45
@ sui_winbolo:

It doesn't change a thing if it's old games or new games. The video stream remains 720p.

Well a solution that would help save bandwidth is run older games at their native 480i/480p resolution. That's what I was getting at. (coming from a console game point of view that is)

Sending a 720p video stream and the capability to provide a decent gaming experience seems to be wishful thinking.

On a LAN this would be easy because everyone would have at LEAST 10Mbps connection and only a few hops between devices at MOST.

I'm currently a Network Engineering student, so I'm just rattling thoughts around my head of how plausible this could be. I do not know much about compression though and how much actual bandwidth this would all require.

I'm finding it difficult to imagine. Especially since Netflix has left me sour towards instant streaming media.
perplekks45 29th March 2009, 13:49 Quote
But that would damage their whole "HD gaming without a decent PC on your HDTV!!!!!1111one" campaign.
impar 29th March 2009, 14:49 Quote
Greetings!

Turn based games would work...
sui_winbolo 29th March 2009, 20:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by perplekks45
But that would damage their whole "HD gaming without a decent PC on your HDTV!!!!!1111one" campaign.

:)

Yeah, for that I wish them the best of luck!

I imagine this company will tank when their idea fails.

Or they will just have to settle for less.
Horizon 29th March 2009, 21:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major
It does work, it just needs tweaking.

AKA Windows 7.

;)

Just seen the developers they have, wow, EA, Ubisoft, THQ, Take2, Eidos, Rockstar etc...

But like I stated before, availability will be key for this to work.

I laugh at you everytime I read that, Windows 7 is older than Vista. Vista is a tweaked version of 7, not the other way around. What was supposed to be a cut down version became a victim of feature creep.
perplekks45 29th March 2009, 21:59 Quote
Ah, that explains why Vista is kernel 6000 and 7 is 6001! :|

From Wikipedia:
Quote:
Microsoft began work on Windows Vista, known at the time by its codename Longhorn in May 2001,[13] five months before the release of Windows XP. It was originally expected to ship sometime late in 2003 as a minor step between Windows XP and Blackcomb, which was planned to be the company's next major operating system release.
Quote:
Blackcomb was renamed Vienna in early 2006,[9] and again to Windows 7 in 2007.[3]
Shuriken 30th March 2009, 09:18 Quote
I think the only way this could work (an God I hope it does) is for their servers to be on the internet back-bone, dealing directly with ISPs.

The fair use policy is gonna be their biggest hurdle in the UK, but then if they are dealing with ISPs direct, that problem could be solved at the source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu

reason 4 is quite sad for those such as Garry, but im sure offline version should keep it going. alternatively, they may find a way to provide it, always keep mods up-to-date, similar to Steam.

Part of their plan is to offer cheap dev-kits that run in the onlive system, so you can develop on PC, Mac or even TV if you wanted, so depending on the cost I think the mod scene could actually thrive.
shigllgetcha 30th March 2009, 10:02 Quote
http://blog.wired.com/games/2009/03/hands-on-onlive.html

really want to be positive but im dubious. i live in ireland and i know it definately wouldnt work here. broadband in ireland is crap, i cant even play an online game of GTAIV without my connection crashing
AQNFX 30th March 2009, 18:21 Quote
I think it will be like Saga Dream Cast. Many will swear by it but in the end it just did work towards the masses.

As many of said, I love my hard copies and I love to build my own system and be able to look over at my accomplishment.

Hehe it made me think of the Virtual Boy.

And if you truly think about it, if it was all that good, why isn't Microsoft or Sony trying to buy it. After all Microsoft is trying to buy Nintendo (because of the success of the Wii).
Major 1st April 2009, 13:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horizon
I laugh at you everytime I read that, Windows 7 is older than Vista. Vista is a tweaked version of 7, not the other way around. What was supposed to be a cut down version became a victim of feature creep.

Well you learn something new everyday. ;)
mclean007 1st April 2009, 14:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horizon
I laugh at you everytime I read that, Windows 7 is older than Vista. Vista is a tweaked version of 7, not the other way around. What was supposed to be a cut down version became a victim of feature creep.
Er, what? Don't be absurd - Windows 7 is still not final code, whereas Vista was released over 2 years ago. They share a lot of common features and code, but Windows 7 is very much an evolution of Vista, not the other way around.
Major 1st April 2009, 16:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mclean007
Er, what? Don't be absurd - Windows 7 is still not final code, whereas Vista was released over 2 years ago. They share a lot of common features and code, but Windows 7 is very much an evolution of Vista, not the other way around.

Is what I thought, oh well.

"Onlive Will Work"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7976206.stm
shigllgetcha 1st April 2009, 16:36 Quote
lol i had that link copied to paste it.

hes very definsive over it in that article
Major 1st April 2009, 16:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by shigllgetcha
lol i had that link copied to paste it.

hes very definsive over it in that article

If "anyone" works on something for SEVEN years, and the same day you reveal it, without any testing or real life usage, the majority of the technology world, the people who will be "using" your service, thinks it's all rubbish, you're going to be defensive!

:)
wuyanxu 1st April 2009, 18:02 Quote
must be some ace algorithm and massively parallel, only need less than 100Mhz to compress the data! and less than 2w of power!

well, if OnLive fails, they should re-market those into codec cards, eg, encode 1080p on the fly. i'd love a programme like that so all my videos can be viewed on my iPhone. currently, i have to encode ones i want to watch with my CPU (or GPU using badaboom) first.
perplekks45 1st April 2009, 18:57 Quote
I don't mind using Badaboom at all. 720p in real-time? I'll take that, thank you very much!
Shuriken 6th April 2009, 17:20 Quote
Interesting article here shows the lag in some console games, very few are below 100ms, so assuming the power of their cloud servers could get the in-game lag down, they've then got a healthy overhead for network lag.

Also check out the heavenly sword video on linked in the article, 300ms lag, completely unplayable if you ask me
wuyanxu 6th April 2009, 18:14 Quote
very interesting article, so for console crowd it'd probably be a huge step.

but for PC gamers, i have to say i did felt the "167ms" in GTA4 when it was first released on PC and on PS3 (less on PS3 due to analogue stick). only after patch 1.0.2 did Rockstar managed to smooth out the gameplay for an enjoyable experience.

see if you can feel the 100ms lag, go and try out GTA4 on highest your card will allow without any patch, i am 100% sure you'd feel it when moving around with the mouse.

as long as we don't attach a mouse to OnLive, no one will notice the input lag :) Heavenly Sword was okay on the PS3, felt no lag when using the controller.
C-Sniper 7th April 2009, 02:15 Quote
I think that this is going to be horrible for FPS games. In those games since a lot of times it comes down to ms to determine whether or not you die. I have my reservations about this. I think I will stick to normal buy the game gaming. :|
Red Eye 7th April 2009, 10:33 Quote
I agree C-Sniper, you could say the same for Quick Time Events, I can imagine the frustration and amount of OnLive hardware attributed to the lag.

Just imagine, your playing resident evil 5, boss encounter you have a trickle of heath left and so does the boss, all you need is one good shot, you leap out of the shadows, aim your reticle AND...

*Buffering... please wait*
ZERO <ibis> 1st September 2009, 21:04 Quote
One of the biggest things that draws users to pc gaming is that you can make it suit your needs. From selecting the best settings to equipment to reduce lag in FPS games especially every millisecond counts. If people did not care about these things they would be using a console in the first place with perhaps a mouse hooked up to it. To me this tech seems only directed at people who already play consoles and do not use there pc for much. Also unless they can deliver a constant 100+fps that is going to cause problems too as now users will not be able to take advantage of high tick servers and thus suffer from even worse shot registration.

On another note, think of current remote desktops or even some of those lcd screens that have super high processing lag. Even using regular windows desktop on those is very slow and something like gaming to any degree is laughable.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums