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 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.

[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...

[Berserker]

There's an article 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.

[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 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 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.

[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 )

[JunkTheMagicDragon]

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

wish i was spoiled. 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 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.

[CosmicMonkey]

The site is up and running and US residents can sign up to be beta testers.

[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?