GDC: Geoff Keighley asks, "Could OnLive work on the PS3 or 360?"

[BD2003]

They really skirt around the latency issue. They talk about how multiplayer latency is less of an issue because everyone is on the same server. They also focus on the 1ms encoding latency. What they don't talk about is how completely this is going to fall apart at the last mile of the typical Internet connection.

They have a good and very obvious idea, and the only thing to see here is that someone is trying. Someone gotta be the first to do it....there was a time when xbox live or online gaming in general was a pipe dream. But this ain't coming to the 360 or ps3, probably isn't coming to the ps4...and who can say anything about what happens after that.

 

[Queasy]

Beta signup for those interested.

 

[R Nilla]

Originally posted by: BD2003
They really skirt around the latency issue. They talk about how multiplayer latency is less of an issue because everyone is on the same server. They also focus on the 1ms encoding latency. What they don't talk about is how completely this is going to fall apart at the last mile of the typical Internet connection.

They have a good and very obvious idea, and the only thing to see here is that someone is trying. Someone gotta be the first to do it....there was a time when xbox live or online gaming in general was a pipe dream. But this ain't coming to the 360 or ps3, probably isn't coming to the ps4...and who can say anything about what happens after that.

Yeah, onLive could be absolutely flawless, but if the consumer has connection issues with their ISP, issues with their hardware (modem, router, PC, etc.), anything at all, this will not work. And although it may not be onLive's fault, it might as well be as far as the end user is concerned.

Another issue with the era of steaming in general, is that most people's internet services can barely handle one of these things, let alone multiple. If I want to play a game online (forget onLive, just PC, XBL or PSN) and at the same time someone else in my household wants to stream a Netflix movie or TV show or whatever, we can't really do both (without sacrificing quality and responsiveness).

 

[hans030390]

Originally posted by: R Nilla
Yeah, onLive could be absolutely flawless, but if the consumer has connection issues with their ISP, issues with their hardware (modem, router, PC, etc.), anything at all, this will not work. And although it may not be onLive's fault, it might as well be as far as the end user is concerned.

Heh, not too unlike the PSN, eh? 😉

 

[mmntech]

Another issue is download caps that a lot of ISPs are placing on users. This system will kill your bandwidth unless you have FiOS and unlimited access, which isn't available to probably 90% of Americans and is still non-existant in most of the developed world. Besides, I'm still uncomfortable with purchasing things without actually owning anything tangible. Wave of the future maybe but I don't like publishers having that amount of control over what I play and how I play it. It does have obvious advantages though for mobile gamers. I'm going to take a cautious approach to OnLive. It could be interesting and work really well, or it could end up being another forgotten platform.

 

[R Nilla]

Interesting hands-on write-up on ShackNews. Not exactly positive, but it seems to me that what's described is the best you could possibly hope for considering what this is trying to accomplish. It will be interesting to see how this plays out; mainly how will this function in the wild and how will it be received by the spoiled gamers of today?

 

[BoberFett]

Another take on this; I agree with this guy 100%.

http://www.eurogamer.net/artic...-possibly-work-article

Let's say that I'm wrong. It's not completely unknown. I'm just a man (flesh and blood!) taking a pop at visionaries who reckon they have produced something truly epoch-making. But in order to make OnLive perform exactly as claimed right now, the company has to have achieved the following:

* 1. OnLive has mastered video compression that outstrips the best that current technologies can achieve by a vast margin. In short, it has outsmarted the smartest compressionists in the world, and not only that, it's doing it in real-time.
* 2. OnLive's unparalleled grasp of psychophysics means that it has all but eliminated the concept of IP lag during its seven years of "stealth development", succeeding where the best minds in the business have only met with limited success.
* 3. OnLive has developed a range of affordable PC-compatible super-computers and hardware video encoders that are generations beyond anything on the market at the moment.

At some point, Occam's Razor, along with an ounce of basic common sense, has to step in and bring an end to this fantasy, no matter how much we want it to be true. OnLive boss Steve Perlmen remains adamant: "Perceptually, it appears the game is playing locally... what we have is something that is absolutely incredible. You should be sceptical. My first thinking was this shouldn't work, but it does."

So let's put it this way - I can't wait to be proved wrong.

 

[ivan2]

random thoughts on buffering, since someone bought it up, a very good point.

There's only a few directions that you can move, it is very possible that they are pre-rendering your next moment before you even move. After all, this is what cloud computing are, 10 computers will render each of the 10 directions you will be moved to next. It might sound inefficient, but there's no saying that your PC won't be rendering someone else's game, if you add to that, the cost can be more affordable.

the network latency issues are still very real, basically with 60Hz they have to do paint at 16ms rate, but, if they do interlacing, 32ms, adding the buffer in the equation, it is not too unrealistic.

furthermore, when it's moving, it's harder to detect the graphic quality, i suspect there could be some corner cutting around that to save bandwidth for the buffering.

I too have great doubt about this service's ability to please the hardcore crowd, however for console, set-top box type of thing with limited control options (less possible next frame, hence easy on the buffer), it seems to be pretty doable.

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: ivan2
random thoughts on buffering, since someone bought it up, a very good point.

There's only a few directions that you can move, it is very possible that they are pre-rendering your next moment before you even move. After all, this is what cloud computing are, 10 computers will render each of the 10 directions you will be moved to next. It might sound inefficient, but there's no saying that your PC won't be rendering someone else's game, if you add to that, the cost can be more affordable.

sorry but that makes no sense to me. there are FAR more than 10 directions you can move in an FPS game, and do you realize how powerful a computer you would need to render all of those screens BEFORE you even move? then when you DO move, it has to do that again?

this whole concept, while cool in theory, just makes absolutely no sense in the real world.

 

[ivan2]

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: ivan2
random thoughts on buffering, since someone bought it up, a very good point.

There's only a few directions that you can move, it is very possible that they are pre-rendering your next moment before you even move. After all, this is what cloud computing are, 10 computers will render each of the 10 directions you will be moved to next. It might sound inefficient, but there's no saying that your PC won't be rendering someone else's game, if you add to that, the cost can be more affordable.

sorry but that makes no sense to me. there are FAR more than 10 directions you can move in an FPS game, and do you realize how powerful a computer you would need to render all of those screens BEFORE you even move? then when you DO move, it has to do that again?

this whole concept, while cool in theory, just makes absolutely no sense in the real world.

hence my thoughts that it is better suits for a set-top box or console type of thing.

further more, it is also possible that they don't render precise to your input, but just a ballpark figure. it will be close to the untrained eyes, and those are what they are going for.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: ivan2
I too have great doubt about this service's ability to please the hardcore crowd, however for console, set-top box type of thing with limited control options (less possible next frame, hence easy on the buffer), it seems to be pretty doable.

I don't know if they are trying to please the hardcore with this though. The max video res is going to be 720p. And it isn't an ultra-crisp 720p judging from some of the GDC coverage. This will appeal to the console and casual gamer crowd but probably never the hardcore crowd.

One thing I haven't heard though is how well this will do with multiplayer. They showed a brief two-person multiplayer session in Crysis but that's a far cry (pun?) from 8 vs 8, 16 vs 16, 32 vs 32 of many modern games.

 

[ivan2]

Originally posted by: ivan2

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: ivan2
random thoughts on buffering, since someone bought it up, a very good point.

There's only a few directions that you can move, it is very possible that they are pre-rendering your next moment before you even move. After all, this is what cloud computing are, 10 computers will render each of the 10 directions you will be moved to next. It might sound inefficient, but there's no saying that your PC won't be rendering someone else's game, if you add to that, the cost can be more affordable.

sorry but that makes no sense to me. there are FAR more than 10 directions you can move in an FPS game, and do you realize how powerful a computer you would need to render all of those screens BEFORE you even move? then when you DO move, it has to do that again?

this whole concept, while cool in theory, just makes absolutely no sense in the real world.

hence my thoughts that it is better suits for a set-top box or console type of thing.

further more, it is also possible that they don't render precise to your input, but just a ballpark figure. it will be close to the untrained eyes, and those are what they are going for.

yes, i also realized that it takes 10 computers(not a precise number) to do that job at 100% all the time. But, it can give you 10 crappy images with 1 computer, until they realize you stopped to appreciate the scenery, then it renders a pretty one.

they are gonna need to cut corner somewhere, just where i think they will be doing.

how did i quoted myself... nvm

 

[Spicedaddy]

I just don't understand the advantage of having your game rendered remotely and then streamed back to you. Cheaper console? Who cares about that when you can get a 360 for under 200$.

Plenty of disadvantages though... You need an internet connection to play, bandwidth caps, possible lag, etc.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Spicedaddy
I just don't understand the advantage of having your game rendered remotely and then streamed back to you. Cheaper console? Who cares about that when you can get a 360 for under 200$.

Plenty of disadvantages though... You need an internet connection to play, bandwidth caps, possible lag, etc.

The advantage is that because you dont see the hardware, you'll think you're not actually paying for it, and that the graphics will supposedly be way better than anything you can afford. They demoed crysis for a reason.

The hard reality will be quite the opposite. Putting this in the cloud doesnt make nearly as much sense as it sounds - this isnt like email where there's very little processing going on and it only spits out data in bursts, and so it can be shared amongst tons of users very efficiently. A game has to run in real time and needs significant hardware dedicated to it in order to do so.

And this hardware in the cloud needs to be paid for - theyll get bulk discounts to be sure, but theyll have to make significant capital investments that will need to be depreciated over the years, just like the R&D for a console. There is absolutely no way visual quality will keep up with the desktop hardware cycle - they'll keep it as low end as they can for as long as they can, or else theyll charge an arm and a leg for it.

Its kinda like XM radio - when it first came out, they had a few channels, and each stream was a crystal clear CD quality. As they added channels to suit the higher number of users, audio quality dropped to such a pathetic level. Most streams are now 24-32kbps, and it sounds like the worst internet stream you can find. And theyre hardly going to throw a new satellite up there, because enough people are satisfied.

Think about how many people are satisfied with the Wii's graphics, and then you'll know why OnLive will not only play like crap, but look like crap. It'll be for the super lazy, super casual. Sorry, but if you like graphics better than a console, youre still gonna have to cough up serious dough, either to nvidia for a chip or to OnLive for "premium" content.

Its still way ahead of its time, not only in concept, but in necessity. I'm sure theyre just searching for a buyer. I'll bet OnLive itself never sees the light of day.

 

[WraithETC]

Isn't watching video different from playing a game being rendered?

I mean when I play a game at 480p at whatever fps but then I record it at the same resolution with 30fps it doesn't look the same.

How exactly do they have the rendering power to support like hundreds of thousands playing games like crysis?

_________

This is basically making the PC a console if you ask me.

100% control over software (no pirating)

"Simplicity"

Controlled marketing interface.

The only difference is that you already own the console most likely.

 

[Piuc2020]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Spicedaddy
I just don't understand the advantage of having your game rendered remotely and then streamed back to you. Cheaper console? Who cares about that when you can get a 360 for under 200$.

Plenty of disadvantages though... You need an internet connection to play, bandwidth caps, possible lag, etc.

The advantage is that because you dont see the hardware, you'll think you're not actually paying for it, and that the graphics will supposedly be way better than anything you can afford. They demoed crysis for a reason.
.

Not really, the max resolution is 720p and an 9600GTO or whatever the 8800GS rebrand was can play Crysis at max settings on that resolution, in fact, playing Crysis on max settings at 720p is no difficult feat and many people have done it before, hardly unseen. Unless of course I'm just tired and I missed your irony somewhere in there.

The lag is considerable when playing singleplayer, imagine when playing online :S

OnLive is destined to fail, you don't need a beefy/expensive computer to play games at max settings, 720p, so the whole upgrading/cost point is moot, the big advantages I see are convenience and ease of use but it's not like buying a computer and using distribution channels like Steam are any difficult.

 

[gorcorps]

Originally posted by: Piuc2020

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Spicedaddy
I just don't understand the advantage of having your game rendered remotely and then streamed back to you. Cheaper console? Who cares about that when you can get a 360 for under 200$.

Plenty of disadvantages though... You need an internet connection to play, bandwidth caps, possible lag, etc.

The advantage is that because you dont see the hardware, you'll think you're not actually paying for it, and that the graphics will supposedly be way better than anything you can afford. They demoed crysis for a reason.
.

Not really, the max resolution is 720p and an 9600GTO or whatever the 8800GS rebrand was can play Crysis at max settings on that resolution, in fact, playing Crysis on max settings at 720p is no difficult feat and many people have done it before, hardly unseen. Unless of course I'm just tired and I missed your irony somewhere in there.

The lag is considerable when playing singleplayer, imagine when playing online :S

OnLive is destined to fail, you don't need a beefy/expensive computer to play games at max settings, 720p, so the whole upgrading/cost point is moot, the big advantages I see are convenience and ease of use but it's not like buying a computer and using distribution channels like Steam are any difficult.

You still need a decent PC to play it. I'd say around $600 for everything which certainly ISN'T moot.