Onlive? Wtf?

[BHvrd]

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/47080.html

It sounds cool, but all that he says it can do I doubt, seriously. Well it might be able to do all that, but doing it well i'm sure it won't.

I mean it just seems too weird, you don't even need a console. It's all from online.

[Graham Mitchell]

Wow, that's pretty nuts. If this really works the way he says it does, this could kill the concept of consoles in general. Of course, it sounds like games may disappear off the service at any given time so nothing could really replace having a physical copy if that were the case.

[boatofcar]

Real high-speed broadband market penetration is a major stumbling block. Not everybody wants to have their game stutter every time their network connection does.

[JunkTheMagicDragon]

sad to say, this is probably the way future gaming will go, once broadband penetration is higher speed, lower latency, and ubiquitous (which is still a ways away).

<hyperbole>
after that, no more lan parties:(
</hyperbole>

[squirrelnut]

Yup, i 100% fully expect this magical device to exist

/sarcasm

[CosmicMonkey]

The concept in itself is sound and certainly looks very good on paper; I really believe devices like this will be the future. But I also believe that future is still a few years away. In theory it should work, but I really don't think our current BB connections are up to it, and ISPs love to cap your line if you're downloading too much.

There's a countdown on the OnLive website (http://www.onlive.com/) with about 12 hours to go atm.

I like the design of the pad and the microconsole really is tiny.

[Icarus Moonsight]

So, is this in any way related to the Phantom or what? Dude said it has been 7 years in dev. I'll be watching this thing. It certainly is interesting.

[Berserker]

There's an article (http://pc.ign.com/articles/965/965535p1.html) about this now on IGN, though it reads more like a straight press release from the first paragraph:


Before I dive into what OnLive is and how it works, let me start by saying that you should read every word of this article as this service has the potential to completely change the way games are played. If it works and gets proper support from both publishers and gamers, you may never need a high-end PC to play the latest games, or perhaps even ever buy a console again. That is not an exaggeration.

You'll note the only part of that paragraph that isn't hyperbole or just straight unfiltered PR - "If it works..." - The rest of the article continues in much the same fashion.

Setting aside whether or not it's actually feasible, I don't see how it could be sustainable. It would require a huge amount of infrastructure - hardware to run the games, servers etc - to accommodate every new player that joins. I don't know this company, but I know they're not a giant, which is basically what you'd have to be to have this sort of infrastructure in place.

My guess is that even if it manages to make it to some sort of implementation stage, these guys are going to be in way over their heads. They'll be swamped with users, the server hardware will be overloaded, so the games won't play very well, the customers will leave and they'll go under. And that's giving the benefit of the doubt that there won't be unforeseen routing/networking problems in a live scenario. Which there will be.

Until then, all we're left with right now is yet another example of how little gaming journalism has to do with actual journalism, which we knew already. I mean, just check the comments section underneath:


wow another phantom box u guys remember that $h!T...

Some probable 14-year old who can barely type without employing l33tspeak is more skeptical than this guy ought to be... that to me is the most interesting thing out of all of this.

There are some implications of the idea this proposed service centers around that could be interesting to discuss however, like the implications of owning vs renting hardware. I think I'll save my part of that discussion for when some serious attempt is made towards implementing it though, because this to me just doesn't seem serious.

[Darren870]

This would be good if games were maybe 1/2 - 1/3 the price on Onlive..

My guess is they wont be so why wouldn't you want to shell out the extra $5-10 especially for resale value. Im not really fond on spending $20-$60 on a game and then being stuck with it if it sucks.

If you could sell games onlive that would be kinda cool, doubt it though..

Also they won't have any first party titles. I think this would be a hit for games less then $15, but otherwise no.

[Sonicwolf]

Just what we need. Something to clog the internet even more.

[FxMercenary]

I guess im spoiled here with my internet speed. ( Verizon FiOs )

http://www.speedtest.net/result/435743985.png

[JunkTheMagicDragon]

I guess im spoiled here with my internet speed. ( Verizon FiOs )

wish i was spoiled:mad:. i'm paying $80/mo for 1mbit (wildblue) here in the sticks. speedtest says it does 1.5mb, but i never get that on a real-world connection. once my contract is up, i'm gonna upgrade to a 3mbit dsl (the fastest windstream has to offer here). still, nothing like what you've got.

[CosmicMonkey]

I've just done three speed tests (http://www.speedtest.net/) and averaged 9300kb/s download and 650kb/s upload. As long as OnLive have servers set up here in Blighty, then I should be able to get the full 720p/60 signal. In theory. Hmmmm

Depending on pricing and subscription plans, I may well pick one of these up just to see if it really can do what it claims.


Just what we need. Something to clog the internet even more.

I think it's time for the internet to be used for proper technological advances such as this. Honestly these days we've got fibre optic broadband, stupidly fast Nehalem Xeon/i7 CPUs and GPUs with more RAM onboard than most people's whole home PC, and what do we use it for? Porn. I think we should be using this huge bandwidth and processing power for a little more than watching talented young ladies.

[The 1 2 P]

Setting aside whether or not it's actually feasible, I don't see how it could be sustainable. It would require a huge amount of infrastructure - hardware to run the games, servers etc - to accommodate every new player that joins. I don't know this company, but I know they're not a giant, which is basically what you'd have to be to have this sort of infrastructure in place.

This reminds me of how the 360 crashed when Halo 3 came out because of the huge increase in users. And Microsoft is the giant in which you speak of. Also keep this in mind: it would be like the Halo 3 crash only 400 times worse. 100 times worse for all the PS3 users using the same service at the same time, 100 worse for Wii users, 100 worse for pc users and then 100 times worse for all the casual people who want to take a look. Like you said, this infrastructure simply won't exist for atleast a bare minimum of ten years and then there will be all the various kinks to work out of it.


Some probable 14-year old who can barely type without employing l33tspeak is more skeptical than this guy ought to be... that to me is the most interesting thing out of all of this

I'm sure the writer knew this isn't very feasible in 2009(or 2010) but he was probably trying to build hype and/or get his readers excited. It definitely sounds like a very interesting service but it's way ahead of it's time.

[Trevelyan]

hmm, i'd hazard its still might be too much too soon for something like this, im not sold on what ive seen or heard thus far.

[Berserker]

This reminds me of how the 360 crashed when Halo 3 came out because of the huge increase in users. And Microsoft is the giant in which you speak of. Also keep this in mind: it would be like the Halo 3 crash only 400 times worse. 100 times worse for all the PS3 users using the same service at the same time, 100 worse for Wii users, 100 worse for pc users and then 100 times worse for all the casual people who want to take a look. Like you said, this infrastructure simply won't exist for atleast a bare minimum of ten years and then there will be all the various kinks to work out of it.

It might even be that they're just trying to bait one of these giants into snapping up the technology; buying them out and then shelving it for 2 or 3 console generations when it'd be more feasible in a mass market.



I'm sure the writer knew this isn't very feasible in 2009(or 2010) but he was probably trying to build hype and/or get his readers excited.

That's the job of the PR industry, not journalists. It's the job of journalists to be critical and skeptical of that PR, not to build upon and amplify it. I'm often critical here because gaming is one area where the journalism has become totally compromised, and what's more is that by now it's just blatantly obvious to everyone.

So for example you took it as a given that the news writer was just trying to build hype, get us excited, and leave the full responsibility of being skeptical on our shoulders, instead of doing something completely out-of-the-ordinary like trying to inform us. Which is certainly understandable, as by now this is all we realistically have come to expect from them.

Still, it concerns me, as gaming and its community is something that takes up a good part of my time, so I'd like to see it treated with the respect it (and we) deserve. So that's basically why I'm critical of gaming journalism, especially when some glaringly obvious example like this presents itself.

[Ed Oscuro]

I guess they're banking on the stimulus package bandwidth improvements, heh :D I still would bet against this being the face of gaming for the immediate future, but eventually it does make sense for game companies to roll it out. That said, I wouldn't underestimate the ability of the big players like Intel (http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2008/08/larrabee-intels-biggest-leap-ahead-since-the-pentium-pro.ars) to bring out good tech at a good price (not that I'm expecting Larrabee to be cheap anytime soon, but it makes sense to have graphics done cheaply in a box, even if you don't want to spend money on any local memory or anything else too expensive in a box at home).

Now, the economics of such a thing...I doubt the OnLive team has any kind of war chest to buy computers for a server farm, and unless they're providing a service and infrastructure support for publishers like EA to have their own systems in-house, they'll have to sell themselves to a Microsoft to keep the idea alive.

I think they'll end up providing some kind of service - hardware could be just regular PCs, and their stuff becomes basically just middleware as far as game developers are concerned.

There are many obvious advantages to such a system. No jackasses buying expensive consoles just to smash them and post a vid online (at a loss to the console manufacturer); there's no appreciable downtime or economic loss if somebody does manage to mess up one of the in-home units. If the actual game-running hardware goes down while you're playing on it, I'm sure you could be quickly switched over to a different unit deep within a server farm somewhere, and again it's easier, faster, and cheaper for everybody if it's serviced right in there by technicians (although I don't imagine the actual server farms would be pleasant to work in).

Another advantage (for publishers): Bye-bye piracy (hopefully bye-bye copy protection too, just server authentication and the like will be necessary still).

This reminds me not only of cloud computing but of the Frederick Pohl story / novel "The Age of the Pussyfoot," except that was written in the 60s and so they weren't thinking far beyond simple directory services by radio with a central computer. "Bandwidth, bandwidth, bandwidth," I guess. The question, for me, is whether future consoles will be a model like this, or like the Phantom: All content and process stored and processed distantly, or just content stored at a distance.

[CosmicMonkey]

The site is up and running and US residents can sign up to be beta testers (http://www.onlive.com/beta_program.html).

[s1lence]

I'm sure retailers would be all over this concept as well......................


Neat idea on paper, current infrastructure will limit it being a practical medium for now.

Also, former founder of WebTV is involved, how well did that investment work out?

[Trebuken]

The video on their website was stuttering as I tried to watch it... :/

Ihave 7000 kb/s, though I average half that at most times...

I think the controller looks a little flimsy, and curiously resembles a 360 controller. Yet the promise it gives with cloud computing is intriguing. What else can cloud computing accomplish?

Yeah, I think our broadband install base needs to expand and speed up. I have been reading about 50Mbps and 100Mbps connections coming.

[Graham Mitchell]

The site is up and running and US residents can sign up to be beta testers (http://www.onlive.com/beta_program.html).

I signed up! If I get picked I'll update you guys on how well it's working. They say they're doing external betas "later this year".

[exit]

If it sounds too good to be true, then chances are it is. Like others have said, this sounds great on paper, but realistically it will turn into a disaster. That's not to say that this concept won't eventually work, I mean Gametap has a similar concept and that seems to be working fine for them. On-Live will just be one of many stepping stones that will help pave the way for concepts like this in the future.

[Ze_ro]

Interesting concept, and might work in the future, but too many technological problems for it to work for everyone right now. My download would be fast enough to handle it, but I'm capped at 60GB per month... by my calculations, that only works out to something like 27 hours worth of gaming a month, and that assumes I don't use the internet for anything else at all.

I'm also not convinced you could do this kind of a thing without introducing a lot of latency in the controls. Fast connection or not, 1000 miles is pretty substantial, and the larger the internet gets, the more computers your data will be routing through that could slow it down. Hell, some people don't even like using wireless controllers because they feel the latency is too high.

Not to mention that this is yet another example of "gaming as a service". You'll give them money and get only an experience in return. No disc, and not even data sitting on a hard drive that you could use later. I never really consider video games as an investment per-se, but the idea of getting nothing substantial for my money is something I always find distasteful... like paying for parking.

--Zero

[Ed Oscuro]

Some more commentary on the subject, now with 1000% more facts!

From the 2D Gaming Forum (http://2dgaming.site90.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3849#3849).

"OnLive could threaten Xbox, PS3, and Wii", says the headline (http://news.cnet.com/8301-10797_3-10202688-235.html) of a cnet article. I don't think so. Here is why:

There are several warning signs pointing to OnLive being not only a technological but also a physical impossibility, and thus nothing more than a scheme to attract gullible investors. Because the speed of light is limited, OnLive's claims of lag free server-based gaming are noncredible. The rate of data transmission across optical cables is generally 33-66% of C depending on conditions (not taking into consideration packet routing etc.). Server-side gaming can never match the locality of a processor for transmission speeds, which is why it is best suited for network gaming between two local machines. These facts, combined with the processing power required to run modern hi-res games (potentially for Millions of users), the current broadband infrastructure and bandwidth requirements for transmitting hi-def content, make OnLive's claims unrealistic.

6 Reasons OnLive Could Be a Bust (http://www.pcworld.com/article/161930-2/gdc_09_6_reasons_onlive_could_be_a_bust.html)

[mnbren05]

Yeah I bet it will cost about $200+ for the hardware and the subscription will have to be no less than $50-75 a month for their lowest level of membership. That is unless they do ala carte or a x amount of games. Never thought the Phantom would actually live. lol.

[dsullo]

could this be an early april fools?

[Sonicwolf]

I think something we are all forgetting is PHANTOM. We all remember how THAT turned out.

Same thing, less hideous.

[Icarus Moonsight]

So, is this in any way related to the Phantom or what? Dude said it has been 7 years in dev. I'll be watching this thing. It certainly is interesting.

I didn't forget. It's what I immediately thought of...

[GrandAmChandler]

Sega Channel called, they want their idea back.

[Berserker]

There's a somewhat more appropriately-skeptical article about this now on Eurogamer:

GDC: Why OnLive Can't Possibly Work (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/gdc-why-onlive-cant-possibly-work-article)

.. OnLive overlord Steve Perlmen has said that the latency introduced by the encoder is 1ms. Think about that; he's saying that the OnLive encoder runs at 1000fps. It's one of the most astonishing claims I've ever heard. It's like Ford saying that the new Fiesta's cruising speed is in excess of the speed of sound. To give some idea of the kind of leap OnLive reckons it is delivering, I consulted one of the world's leading specialists in high-end video encoding, and his response to OnLive's claims included such gems as "Bulls***" and "Hahahahaha!" along with a more measured, "I have the feeling that somebody is not telling the entire story here." This is a man whose know-how has helped YouTube make the jump to HD, and whose software is used in video compression applications around the world.

[thedeityofhardcore]

Human nature tells me this shit won't fly

[Sonicwolf]

Imagine if the Wii virtual console became a seperate system like this? That would be awesome for people who dont own a wii but want a cheap alternative...

[Rob2600]

Leo Laporte and Paul Thurrott talked about OnLive in some detail in the most recent episode (#100) of their Windows Weekly podcast: http://twit.tv/ww100

Supposedly, using OnLive, people will be able to play a game like Crysis with all of the graphics options set to maximum, on an entry-level GPU-less computer at 720p/60fps. How? Well, OnLive's gigantic server farm will do all of the processing and rendering and will simply stream that data to the user's entry-level computer.




I'm also not convinced you could do this kind of a thing without introducing a lot of latency in the controls. Fast connection or not, 1000 miles is pretty substantial

Not really, according to this article:

PALGN - OnLive: A technical analysis (http://palgn.com.au/article.php?id=13939&sid=e8206da43d7752e0206a6c1598069)

"Typical network latencies are well documented. ... On cable and DSL connections, they are generally less than 100 ms to a computer in the same country. ... Steve Perlman said the service will work with a data-center up to 1,000 miles (1,600km) away. Typically, you would expect up to 30 ms latencies for this distance."

"A general rule of thumb for computer interfaces has been around since 1968. Any response time up to 100 ms is considered instantaneous by most people."



In addition to the 30 ms/1,000 mile latency:

"On the bandwidth front, the issue is video compression. ... They have custom-built a network card that can compress HD video in less than 1ms. This almost wipes out the impact that compression has on the latency..."

"...there will be some additional latency to consider at the client end involved with decoding the compressed video, but this could be expected to be less than 5ms on most machines."



So, OnLive's controller response time, using a 1.5 Mbps-5 Mbps broadband internet connection and an entry-level home computer (no GPU necessary), will supposedly be somewhere between 36-80 ms. In other words, instantaneous. The response time should be no greater than that in current home console games. "...less than 100 ms would be the sweet spot, but up to 160 ms is acceptable. ...games around the 167 ms mark (like GTA IV) start to feel sluggish..."

To compare, "here are some numbers Gamasutra found for controller response time for various games:"

* PS3 system menus - 50 ms
* Guitar Hero III - 50 ms
* Ridge Racer 7 - 67 ms
* Virtua Tennis 3 - 67 ms
* Ninja Gaiden Sigma - 67 ms
* PixelJunk Racers - 67 ms
(OnLive - 36-80 ms)
* Genji: Days of the Blade - 100 ms
* Tony Hawk's Proving Ground - 133 ms
* BlackSite: Area 51 - 133 ms

starts to feel sluggish sometimes:

* Halo 3 - 133-167 ms
* Skate - 167 ms
* Grand Theft Auto IV - 167 ms
* Heavenly Sword - 117-300 ms




this is yet another example of "gaming as a service". You'll give them money and get only an experience in return. No disc, and not even data sitting on a hard drive that you could use later. ... the idea of getting nothing substantial for my money is something I always find distasteful... like paying for parking.

Or like cable TV. Do you pay for cable TV? What about movie theater tickets, Broadway theater tickets, or satellite radio? How is OnLive any different?

[Icarus Moonsight]

Imagine if the Wii virtual console became a seperate system like this? That would be awesome for people who dont own a wii but want a cheap alternative...

The cheap alternative to the cheap alternative... Kinda like buying a Yugo Matchbox car at Wal-Mart. LOL

[The 1 2 P]

Or like cable TV. Do you pay for cable TV?

Yeah but some of us have dvr boxes directly from the cable company. With that you can record anywhere from 20-100 hours(depending on your service) of cable tv programs, movies, etc. You can then transfer all that saved content directly onto vhs tapes and in some cases recordable dvds. So in this case we are actually getting something for our cable fee money.

[CosmicMonkey]

Imagine if the Wii virtual console became a seperate system like this? That would be awesome for people who dont own a wii but want a cheap alternative...

IQue Player. I do wonder why it didn't see a Western release during the height of the Plug n' Play craze.

[Berserker]

Or like cable TV. Do you pay for cable TV? What about movie theater tickets, Broadway theater tickets, or satellite radio? How is OnLive any different?

In all of the examples mentioned, your role is that of a passive observer, whereas with video games your role is that of an active participant. That's a pretty notable difference.

Now arcade games might not be an unreasonable comparison to draw to OnLive, since in that case you also physically own neither hardware nor software. But while arcade games require nothing more than perhaps a few minutes investment of personal time and effort, modern games often require a much more substantial personal investment of hours or even days-worth-of-hours. There's another difference.

You might also be tempted to draw a comparison to rented games, though that's also significantly different, as you usually have physical ownership of the hardware you're playing the game on, and also at least temporary physical possession of the game itself.

The overarching question when it comes to OnLive, beyond whether or not it actually works, is whether or not you're willing to trade inherent rights that come with physically possessing something over in exchange for convenience. When it comes to video games which require a substantial personal investment of time and effort, that's just not a trade I'm willing to make.

[boatofcar]

The overarching question when it comes to OnLive, beyond whether or not it actually works,

That's just it though. I think it's rather poinless to debate the plusses (plusses is not a word but minuses is?) and minuses of OnLive before it's clear that it actually will exist in any form. It's like arguing about the usefulness of a hoverboard.

[s1lence]

That's just it though. I think it's rather poinless to debate the plusses (plusses is not a word but minuses is?) and minuses of OnLive before it's clear that it actually will exist in any form. It's like arguing about the usefulness of a hoverboard.

2015 is only 6 years away....I want my damn hoverboard. (Flying cars too)

[Berserker]

That's just it though. I think it's rather poinless to debate the plusses (plusses is not a word but minuses is?) and minuses of OnLive before it's clear that it actually will exist in any form. It's like arguing about the usefulness of a hoverboard.

Yeah, that's a sentiment I expressed earlier in this thread somewhere. Still, I don't think this idea is going to go away, even after OnLive goes away. The concept of having complete control over consumer software AND hardware is just too tempting for the corporate world, which is why they'll probably continue to throw money towards this venture and others like it.

So for that reason a debate of concept might not be completely without merit, if people want to have it. I won't start it, for the reasons you've mentioned, but I will respond to it, which is what I did above.

[boatofcar]

So for that reason a debate of concept might not be completely without merit, if people want to have it. I won't start it, for the reasons you've mentioned, but I will respond to it, which is what I did above.

Fair enough :)

Do we have reliable statistics about the percentage of people living in the US with the kind of broadband speeds required for a service like this? I know that ISP's make higher speed broadband connections available, but I don't know how many people pay the extra money to get anything beyond the "standard" broadband speed.

[Rob2600]

Do we have reliable statistics about the percentage of people living in the US with the kind of broadband speeds required for a service like this?

As of 2007, supposedly 53% of U.S. households have high-speed internet access. I don't know what qualifies as "high-speed" though.

Steve Perlman at OnLive said the service will work perfectly, delivering 480p/60fps graphics, with as low as a 1.5 Mbps internet connection (154 KB/s minimum).

With a 5 Mbps internet connection (614 KB/s minimum), OnLive will deliver 720p/60fps graphics.

[Sonicwolf]

My ISP, Telus, doesnt count as highspeed even if your paying high speed prices and getting high speed internet. Its a little more like Interfail. 35 bucks a month for 130Kbs. woo bloody hoo.

I am unable to have internet gaming fun or even look into these kinds of downloading services. Especially with a sister who plays world of warcraft all the time.

[Rob2600]

My ISP, Telus, doesnt count as highspeed even if your paying high speed prices and getting high speed internet. Its a little more like Interfail. 35 bucks a month for 130Kbs.

130 Kbps...or 130 KB/s? 130 Kbps is only 16.25 KB/s, which would infuriate me.


Here in NJ and NYC, $32 a month would get me 128 KB/s down, $46 a month gets me 640 KB/s down, and $54 a month would get me 1.25 MB/s down.

[Sonicwolf]

130 Kbps...or 130 KB/s? 130 Kbps is only 16.25 KB/s, which would infuriate me.


Here in NJ and NYC, $32 a month would get me 128 KB/s down, $46 a month gets me 640 KB/s down, and $54 a month would get me 1.25 MB/s down.

Kilobytes per second I meant.

Telus is evil. First, They promise you double speed internet then, in order to do that, they lock you into a frozen price contract, drop the price of the internet services afterwards and make it so the new enhanced internet you got duped into buying is now the slowest they provide. They also make it so you can only use their damned shit routers that they provide personally that constantly drop out and have wireless failure issues every 5 minutes. Then when you get fed up, they treat you like a moron and threaten you with contract cancellation charges if you feel their service is totally unsatisfactory. ($20 x number of months left or 150 bucks, whichever is most)

Its driving me up the wall.

[boatofcar]

130 Kbps...or 130 KB/s? 130 Kbps is only 16.25 KB/s, which would infuriate me.


Here in NJ and NYC, $32 a month would get me 128 KB/s down, $46 a month gets me 640 KB/s down, and $54 a month would get me 1.25 MB/s down.

That's what I'm talking about. All those qualify as "high-speed" connections, but I doubt the majority of people are paying for the highest tier, which is the only one Onlive would work with.

[The 1 2 P]

2015 is only 6 years away....I want my damn hoverboard. (Flying cars too)

While we may one day get a hoverboard(I doubt it) we will NEVER see flying cars in our lifetime. It's not because they can't be done. It's just that....have you seen how many accidents happen with motor vehicles? Now if all of that was happening in the sky, where do you think all of those wrecks would be landing? Thats right, double the accidents and damage for every crash that happens in the sky. If motor vehicle accidents were only a single a dozen instead of a dime a dozen, we would already have flying cars. But not in the world we live in today....too many bad drivers.

[Rob2600]

That's what I'm talking about. All those qualify as "high-speed" connections, but I doubt the majority of people are paying for the highest tier, which is the only one Onlive would work with.

According to Steve Perlman at OnLive, with a 1.5 Mbps internet connection (154 KB/s minimum), it will deliver 480p/60fps graphics.

With a 5 Mbps internet connection (614 KB/s minimum), OnLive will deliver 720p/60fps graphics.


My current internet connection ($46/month) should be fast enough to receive OnLive's 720p/60fps graphics, but you're right, the lower tier ($32/month for 128 KB/s) wouldn't be fast enough for any of OnLive's graphics.

[j_factor]

Has anyone ever tried to play a game on a thin client? That's kind of what this concept sounds like to me... except over a "really big" network.

[Bojay1997]

There's a somewhat more appropriately-skeptical article about this now on Eurogamer:

GDC: Why OnLive Can't Possibly Work (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/gdc-why-onlive-cant-possibly-work-article)

Thank you for linking to that article. I recalled reading it somewhere last week, but couldn't remember where. I am 100% in agreement with the analysis that this is all a hoax or at least some very creative marketing. The most compelling statement from that article is the conclusion that if this technology really existed, video games would be the least lucrative application of it. I can tell you that literally dozens of companies have tried to do "high definition" video streaming using a single server class computer connected via high speed connection to a single user and nobody has even gotten close to the performance or compression ratios they are talking about here. I know I personally saw dozens of demos from companies trying to provide digital dailies for film and television production to creative executives around the country and the only thing that ever came close to working was when they actually put a hard drive media server at the end user's location and essentially uploaded the footage to the drive. It's better than sticking a messenger on a plane or truck with a DVD or tape, but it sure isn't practical HD streaming. Of course, just the video and audio portion of this plan isn't even factoring in the whole instantaneous control issue or the business model.

This is probably how games will be played someday, but I am positive that we are still a good 7-10 years away from the infrastructure needed to make this work, let alone the business model to support basically renting a dedicated high end computer and dedicated fiber connection to every user who wants to play these games.

[CosmicMonkey]

There's an interview with OnLive founder Steve Perlman over on Joystiq (http://www.joystiq.com/2009/04/01/gdc09-interview-onlive-founder-steve-perlman-wants-you-to-be-sk/). It's in three parts, the final part will be posted tomorrow. It's quite an interesting read. It seems that as long as you're within 1000 miles of an OnLive server centre the system operates without any noticeable lag. To begin with there will be five server centres covering the USA. Here in the UK they could put a single server centre anywhere and we'd all be within 500 miles at the absolute most.

I eagerly await the beta test in the summer so can can see for ourselves if this really works.

[Tupin]

Nice, a brand new Phantom.

We'll see how well it works/how much it costs.

[The 1 2 P]

Now that Nintendo of America President Reggie Fils-Aime has officially said that Nintendo will never (http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/reggie-takes-on-apple-onlive-and-obama/?biz=1) take part in this you can rule it out as being the end-all be-all it's been hyped to be. I'm sure Microsoft and Sony will follow suit.

[Bojay1997]

Now that Nintendo of America President Reggie Fils-Aime has officially said that Nintendo will never (http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/reggie-takes-on-apple-onlive-and-obama/?biz=1) take part in this you can rule it out as being the end-all be-all it's been hyped to be. I'm sure Microsoft and Sony will follow suit.

While the press might be hyping it as a console killer, I don't think the On Live folks are really saying that's what it is. It's pretty specifically designed to play PC games that require maximum specs that the typical gamer might not want to keep investing in every couple of years. There really would be no advantage to someone using this to play Nintendo or even Xbox style console games since that's only a one-time investment that is good for a 5-6 year console life cycle. I still don't think the technology is real and even if it is, there is a very significant business model problem with having to dedicate a very high end PC and dedicated connection to every single user. How much would that cost a month? Based on what my company pays for a dedicated server farm, I'd guess $80 to $100 per month per user. The Joystiq article confirms the shadiness of this plan for me since the CEO seemed very hesitant to allow uncontrolled tests by the press. I suspect as others have that this is just a ploy to raise a ton of cash and create some nice golden parachutes for the CEO and other execs.

[CosmicMonkey]

...I still don't think the technology is real and even if it is, there is a very significant business model problem with having to dedicate a very high end PC and dedicated connection to every single user...

There won't be a dedicated PC for every user; this is going to use virtualization. When you sign in to the servers, a new virtual machine is set up for you. Or at least that's the only realistic way I can see of doing it.

[kaedesdisciple]

If things like this continue, onlive will be quite dead for many a user stuck with TWC:

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2009/tc20090331_726397.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index +-+temp_news+%2B+analysis

Like I keep saying, not if, when.

[Rob2600]

onlive will be quite dead for many a user stuck with TWC:

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2009/tc20090331_726397.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index +-+temp_news+%2B+analysis

I could see if Time Warner Cable offered four tiers, like 5 GB/month, 25 GB/month, 100 GB/month, and 300 GB/month. Fine.

But according to the article you linked to, TWC's four tiers are 5 GB/month ($30), 10 GB/month, 20 GB/month, and 40 GB/month ($55). I don't stream HD video, so 20 GB/month is probably fine for someone like me, but still...the highest tier is 40 GB/month? And customers will be charged $1 for each additional GB they go over their particular tier.


Then again, that article also claims Americans watch 60 hours of TV a week (8.6 hours a day!), so there's that whole grain of salt thing.

[Bojay1997]

There won't be a dedicated PC for every user; this is going to use virtualization. When you sign in to the servers, a new virtual machine is set up for you. Or at least that's the only realistic way I can see of doing it.

You're right that they are claiming this will be based on "cloud computing", but I suspect that really what they are going to do is some sort of grid computing to avoid having to create customized versions of each game for the service. I find it hard to believe that a virtual machine can be equipped with the sound and graphics card capabilities needed to run these high end games, so that leaves them with having to set up a very expensive infrastructure wherein they are creating a grid of high end gaming PCs with the servers doing the streaming and user interface communication.

[rbudrick]

In about five years, I see no reason this couldn't work with today's systems. However, for any last gen systems or former gen systems, this would work fine on today, methinks. Maybe we'd finally see all the games Nintendo is taking eternity to release on the VC. The lack of storage on this thing has me troubled, though.

-Rob

[swlovinist]

This device has a chance of actually being good. Not good for us collectors, but more for casual gamers and players. It all will depend on price, games available, retail space, and advertising. One thing that might be going for it will be price, if they decide to be smart and market the thing correctly. People wont pay alot for a device that only serves as a link to a server. I signed up to the beta and have my fingers crossed. Consider me curious.

[CosmicMonkey]

The final part of the interview (http://www.joystiq.com/2009/04/02/gdc09-interview-onlive-founder-steve-perlman-continued/) has been posted on Joystiq.

I'm interested in where this could lead to; imagine if the OnLive technology was included in your cable box. So over here, you'd have your Virgin V+ HD cable box with a normal remote and a Virgin/OnLive branded control pad. Firstly, this gives customers something a little more substantial to put under their telly than this random magic control pad. The V+ box already does all your cable telly and movies on demand, so adding the ability to play high-end video games would be awesome. A partnership like this would allow for high bandwith usage as you'd be using Virgin's own lines, so they could offer a reasonably priced cable+phone+games+internet package.

Let's just see if it really does work first. If it does, I can see the concept really taking off.

[The 1 2 P]

Here's another interesting article (http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/onlive-may-draw-google-microsoft-and-apple-as-suitors/?biz=1) where they state that this service was announced specifically to entice larger corporations such as Microsoft, Google and Apple to buy them out.

[Tupin]

That is, if it doesn't turn out to be vaporware.

Oh, and they say that their centers will cover 1000 miles each, what about Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Guam?

[CosmicMonkey]

Here's another interesting article (http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/onlive-may-draw-google-microsoft-and-apple-as-suitors/?biz=1) where they state that this service was announced specifically to entice larger corporations such as Microsoft, Google and Apple to buy them out.

I was actually chatting about this with a couple of people earlier. It came up as a point in the discussion that OnLive are really just looking for someone to buy the technology. This is a small company and they surely can't have the funds necessary. As an evolution to the cable box idea, imagine if Apple did license/buy the OnLive technology and include it in a new version of the AppleTV. Hell, surely they could just make the decoding software run native on the AppleTV. The whole game purchasing side would be tied into iTunes as an App Store for the AppleTV and it would immediately throw Apple into the console market.

Plus, I'd like to see Apple's take on a redesigned controller. I bet it'd be white, and have one single button and a clickwheel. Or just one big multi-touch panel..... Seriously though (now I've done the Apple bashing for you), a slick white redesign of that pad with a shiny silver Apple logo would be awesome.