Digital Foundry vs. OnLive

By Richard Leadbetter Published 9 July, 2010

At stake: the fundamentals of gaming as we know it.

Page 1 of 6

OnLive. Hands-on. Away from controlled conditions, in the public domain, out of beta, and no longer covered by non-disclosure agreements, this article has been a long time coming.

This service is a revolution in the concept of how we buy our games and play them and for a lot of people with vested interests OnLive is scary stuff. Gameplay is transmitted over the internet to a dumb terminal in your home that decompresses audio and video, relaying your gaming inputs back to the server hosted many miles away.

This means that you won't need to buy a new console in future and you'll never need to buy fresh gaming hardware ever again. All technology is upgraded server-side. Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony plus a bunch of PC hardware vendors have every right to feel threatened by this.

But it's not just the platform holders that are a tad concerned by this "cloud gaming" concept. OnLive is piracy-proof because no game code ever leaves the datacentres housing their servers - great for the publishers and developers, but perhaps not so appealing to the customer.

In practical terms this means that you won't be buying your games from bricks and mortar stores any more. You won't be ordering them online. You'll only be able to buy them from OnLive itself, and that means that competition between different suppliers to offer the best deal and to drive down prices simply won't exist. Clearly, a radical and forward-thinking approach to pricing is required here, but does OnLive deliver?

As we're looking at what is essentially the birth of a whole new platform, completely divorced from the current methods of delivering gameplay, OnLive deserves to be subject to the same kind of comment and criticism as a new hardware launch. That being the case, we've spent a lot of time with the system and put it through the same level of scrutiny as we would the latest console.

In this mammoth feature we'll be dissecting the OnLive service across a range of different areas.

Away with the small talk. Let's get started.

The Front-End

OnLive is currently available as a small plug-in that, once installed, adds a shortcut to your desktop. Double-click on that and you're seconds away from connecting to the service. This kicks off with an impressive intro sequence featuring a range of background gaming video feeds that transitions into a functional, if perhaps rather ordinary looking front-end.

From there, you're able to buy games, adjust personal information, check out what's coming to the system soon and also to review your "brag clips". This is one of the unique advantages that the video-streaming nature of the service offers: a buffer of gameplay is always retained server-side and you're able to snip out clips and share them with your friends: a very cute feature.

More impressive still is the Arena. The front-end gives way to a series of picture-in-picture gameplay feeds and each of them presents an actual OnLive player: just select the stream you want to view in more detail and you're able to beam yourself into their session and watch the proceedings. The player himself gets an on-screen notification that this is happening, along with a tally count of viewers, while spectators can rate the player's performance with "cheers" or "jeers". An option to add this person to your friends list is also included.

OnLive's player-spectating arena.

The Arena is possible because while playing, OnLive is actually generating two distinct video feeds. The first is the direct connection with the player/client himself. The second output is known as the "media stream" and is used internally by OnLive precisely for activities like the Arena. Most likely using something along the lines of the MJPEG compression scheme for distribution on the internal network, the media stream is then re-encoded into whatever form the spectator requires, be it the 720p video required by the standard OnLive client or something more exotic like an iPad or iPhone encode.

The Arena is also built into the Marketplace, which is a very nice touch. While reviewing the games you might want to buy, you can get real-time video feeds of OnLive players actually in session. Brag clips are also available to watch, which should in theory present you with a sizeable range of great gameplay moments from the title you're thinking about buying. This is all really intelligent use of the system and simply couldn't be integrated into an existing set-up like PlayStation Network or Xbox Live. It helps to give you a closer relationship with actual gamers and real gameplay.

Checking out OnLive's games marketplace.

Also creditable is the fact that the Marketplace trailers are based on candid gameplay snippets as opposed to professionally cut together promos which probably wouldn't be based on the OnLive version of the game. Publisher-supplied trailers are available, but they tend to be used on the "Coming Soon" area of the site, flagging upcoming games.

Once you're ready to play, you can access your list of titles via the "My Games" button or else click on "Last Played" to return you to your previous game. In both cases, OnLive brings up a stock video clip while the game is loaded up and prepared server-side, in a process that looks like this:

The process of OnLive game-booting.

As an overall introduction to the OnLive system, the front-end works well: it's very easy to navigate and the video compression system doesn't overtly impact the quality of the experience at this point. The effortless use of actual game video throughout, and the dynamic name of its use in the Arena section in particular, really is genuinely new, fresh and interesting.

The process of booting a game is also clearly superior to the existing PC methodology of spending ages waiting for the installation to complete and dealing with DRM activations, and it's a touch faster than booting the same game on your Xbox 360.

All good so far then. Now the fun can really begin: can gameplay streamed over IP really hold a candle to the local experience? Have they really overcome all the doubts about latency in particular?

Page 1 of 6

Comments (92) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • INSOMANiAC #1 2 years ago

    Shame their pricing strategy is nothing short of farcical.
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/10 @ 22:52

  • dsmx #2 2 years ago

    and a latency of over 150 is not acceptable, I've played in multiplayer games with that level and it impacts everything you do. At most, you can get away with 90-100 anything higher and you will notice it.

  • Raiten #3 2 years ago

    Some of the features do sound nice, but there's way too much that's just wrong with this.
    One of the main concerns i've with something like this is, what if the company goes bankrupt.. since you never recieved any of the games on your pc or elsewhere, termination of service would mean you'd loose everything you paid for.
    Similiarly, in situations where connections aren't working, either on the users side or on OnLives side, it'd make you utterly and compleatly unable to play anything trough the system.

  • Raznilof #4 2 years ago

    Thorough, as always.

    The way in which this (might) work is when it's being build into television sets. Right now it comes across as inferior for PC and Console owners. For future television buyers, those machines should be more than capable of handling the requirements. Games would be another form of entertainment, like cable programming; a channel if you wish. Didn't Sega do this in the 90's?

    Once it is being offering as programming, meaning a flat fee per month for unlimited access, then this will pick up. I imagine it could work if they followed the movie template. Release it on console/pc first, 6 months later it comes to channels such as on-live.

    Right now they are first to market, that is probably the real race that they where running. Cloud computing and cloud gaming are inevitable, on-live established its beachhead. From the negative tone in the article, which was looking at this from the point of view as a replacement, on-live's probable real goal seems to have been achieved. If of course, cloud gaming is going to pick up in a year or two from now.

    Edit: Typo's, some dodgy use of grammar and some additional thoughts...
    Edited by 3 at 09/07/10 @ 23:20

  • secombe #5 2 years ago

    Some really neat ideas, sadly I think they are quite a few years too early for this to be worthwhile in the UK. Broadband is just nowhere near stable or fast enough in the majority of the country. I live 2 miles outside a big town on a big 'executive home' estate, so not exactly in the middle of nowhete yet the fastest web connection available is less than 2MB.

  • handsonhips101 #6 2 years ago

    will i be able to play onlive at 6.30 pm weekdays? with my "8 meg connection" that sits around 550kbps at peak? doubt it.

    I'll stick to media i can touch with my hands for now thank you.

  • Chufty #7 2 years ago

    150ms is just FAR TOO MUCH. Why are you measuring the experience with a gamepad? It makes no sense.

    A mouse is the most accurate and responsive way to control a game. Everyone who has tried to play an OnLive game with a mouse has said it fails miserably.

    This was not highlighted enough in the feature.

  • witchdrash #8 2 years ago

    I don't have any interest in this, it's not the reselling, it's the fact I don't entirely trust my net connection, and while Steam and physical media will let me play when my internet connection decides to flake out, which isn't amazingly frequent, but enough that it's a pain (apparently the wiring between the exchange and my block o' flats is a bit crappy and BT can't be bothered to pull their finger out), so the idea of paying full price for games that could fall over at any point (sounds like Ubi's DRM) and then actually look worse (Even worse than Ubi's DRM now) and pay a subscription for the rights to access my own purchased (oh wait, rented for 3 years) game, uh no thanks.

  • gjgjg #9 2 years ago

    good article.
    for a first launch of such a system this could have been a lot worse. this shit is the future, but for now i think secombe is right about this arriving too early, right now i can barely even load this page with my 3mb e45 per month internet connection!

    give it 5 years and with plenty of tweaking, more servers and isp improvements this will be a serious threat to steam xbl and psn.

  • ostrasized #10 2 years ago

    We're all being taken for a massive ride. They're very clever, and their business model works perfectly, but their product is not really for us - we're just the people who're paying attention right now, and generating the press they need.

    OnLive will be installed in HOTELS and CRUISE SHIPS and maybe even AIRPLANES. It will stream Plants Vs Zombies, Puzzle Quest and The Sims at $5 per hour, and make a fortune.

  • Stuz359 #11 2 years ago

    So many problems with the entire concept.

    From the pricing scenario, one, if I cancel my subscription I cannot use any content I have purchased, two, if I purchase something it only lasts for a few years? From this pricing strategy my copy of Gears of War or Heavenly Sword would be unplayable, in fact, I would have to buy them AGAIN if I fancied playing them.

    I resent the idea of paying someone for something essentially I should own, I bought it, as long as I don't distribute it to anyone else I am not breaking the law and they should respect the consumer. This sound more like a communist dictatorship to me. Maybe exagerating slightly but still.

    Oh, and there are so many problems with 'always' being connected to the net it's untrue. Even if my servive cuts out for a second (which happens, nothings perfect) will it interrupt the game?

  • secombe #12 2 years ago

    I also wasn't aware that there were (admittedly basic) system requirements for this, surely when the next generation of games arrive the system requirements are going to edge upwards as more data will need to be thrown up on screen?

    Maybe I'm not getting the 'dumb terminal' aspect, but surely the basic tech in our homes receiving this data will need updating occasionally?

  • Chufty #13 2 years ago

    You need a fairly up to date PC for decoding 720p60 video, but your PC is capable of doing so now, it will be capable of doing so in 10 years.

    Of course, next year they claim to be upgrading to 1080p, so you may find you need to upgrade then...

    The graphic detail of the game has nothing to do with it.
    Edited by 1 at 09/07/10 @ 23:54

  • retrogamesdude #14 2 years ago

    I dont like this OnLive thing, the latency is an issue, plus you dont actually own your games, plus subscription fee, plus insane bonkers price plan. Most people barly have a good internet connection so latency will be an issue. Not owning your games means you cant play them in years to come and cant trade them in for store credit to help buy next game.
    Basicly this OnLive seems to be a sub par crappy version of Xbox Live. All i can say is, we already have Xbox Live and psn so we dont need OnLive. Also we have the Wii, Xbox and PS3, 3 amazing consoles, so why the hell would we even consider OnLive, i certinly wont be buying this crap thing.

  • Spuzzell #15 2 years ago

    Typically superb DF analysis, thanks.

    I've been impressed with what I've read about what Onlive has achieved on the technical side... while still having zero interest in using it.

    I've no intention of playing blurry versions of games with blurry controls at any price and certainly not at what Onlive want to charge, but what they've done is undeniably impressive while still being unappealing.

    If they can survive and improve (and if the broadband infrastructure improves in tandem) for the next 5 years then Onlive could be properly interesting.

  • Eraysor #16 2 years ago

    Great article; I feel with a much better pricing system I could actually use this, though I can't really see it diverting me away from having a fast PC.

  • Rens11 #17 2 years ago

    so as it stands its a more expensive (in the long run) downgrade to current consoles.........I think I'll pass

  • secombe #18 2 years ago

    Surely something like a Sky box would be the perfect trojan for this? They need to strike lots of deals with just about any company that puts tech in your living room (TVs, PVRs etc) to really get this going. As already mentioned in these comments, stick The Sims, Farmville and stuff like that on there and they could be on to something pretty huge.

  • Malek86 #19 2 years ago

    I wonder if they'll be able to mantain such a "low" (relatively speaking) lag, when/if the service catches on and many more people start playing at the same time...

  • Tomo #20 2 years ago

    Fantastic article.

    Don't usually bother with DF admittedly, but I'm fascinated by this OnLive business, so this was perfect reading.

    Thumbs up!

  • Skurmedel #21 2 years ago

    For me the real killer is the fact that it would cost me more to use this service than actually buying a computer capable of playing the games. In the beginning it will be cheaper, but after a while the costs will mount... After a couple of games just upgrading your PC would probably be cheaper, and I would get a good computer to use for other stuff.

    I think this could work quite well with strategy games though, but they are not exactly a giant part of the market.
    Edited by 1 at 10/07/10 @ 00:30

  • Praetorianer #22 2 years ago

    Good article. OnLive is less a failure than I initially believed it to be. But still, all the flaws add up to a clear: NO.

    A thing or two about the future prospects of the system. How about the next generation of consoles and display technologies? Will there still be a lag for local consoles, or will new technologies be able to reduce it? I think it's easier to reduce lag for local consoles than reduce the lag through data transmission over the internet.

    What about ever evolving tech specs? Don't they evolve much faster than the speed and bandwith available for most users? Sure, faster CPUs and GPUs may also be used by OnLive, but aren't video compression methods always a step behind and limiited in the way they work, meaning that it is highly improbable that the video quality issues in comparison to the original local game will be resolved?
    Edited by 1 at 10/07/10 @ 00:34

  • Tormeh #23 2 years ago

    I congratulate DF on this article and I agree with Spuzzell. The technology is impressive and obviously the future, but it's just that: The future.

  • Zaiz #24 2 years ago

    @Chufty
    The reason they use a gamepad is because DF has a working device for measuring input lag for an Xbox360 controller that works very well. They don't have such a device for a mouse.

    I don't see why being first is better than making sure your tech and pricing options are flawless. Why be first if your product is too awful to stand?

  • Tehren #25 2 years ago

    Praise be to DF for the deep, insightful analysis.

    Quick précis: Destined for Disaster.

  • polaris70 #26 2 years ago

    Latest strategy game = epic win.
    Latest FPS multiplayer blockbuster = epic fail.

    Having said that, the latest Total War game pushes the graphics card to the max, so epic fail all around!
    Might be an interesting alternative to consoles in 2045.

  • Grayvern #27 2 years ago

    Who are onlive aiming for, it can't be those unable to afford a console, you still need an around £400 computer for it.

    Anyone price strapped won't but a tv for this, and they have arguably missed the big hdtv switchover period thus eliminating trickle through of many tv sets coming with onlive as standard.

    Do rentals work outside the context of the type of gamers who read the specialist press and complete games in a matter of days.

    I've seen no advertising on any of the American media I look at.

    Looking at attach rates for consoles ie Xbox 360 is the highest with 8.9 will consumers really be interested if the subscription cost for 3 years would cover both the console and all the games they would ever buy.

    By the time this becomes viable for all internet wise, the ease of downloading complete games on console and PC will also be that much better.

    I also doubt when the next gen comes along they will be as a big a leap as this one was meaning PC's will not have to upgrade in a big way for games led by console development. The number of PC games that truly push the boundaries of hardware have also decreased much in recent years. To the point where the biggest problem for people with modest gfx cards playing console ports at this point is massive screen tear from the game running too fast. Also the average £300 dell could crush a 360 if you put a £100ish 4870 in it, providing the card would fit

    And If onlive doesn't achieve moderate success from the start how will they ever afford the future infrastructure upgrades they will need as graphics get better.

    Would onlive ever be able to do 3D, which given the pricing it's fair to assume they're aiming at the affluent who simply don't want to own a desktop, or console.

    Do we even know whether onlive's current pricing structure is enough to allow them to at any point expand, upgrade or even stand still, or are they running off of the engine fumes of start up venture capitalism.
    Edited by 9 at 11/07/10 @ 00:17

  • TripSkyway #28 2 years ago

    Lovely article, interesting stuff.

  • webcider #29 2 years ago

    This article is a work of art and i appreciate the effort.

  • Silvervein #30 2 years ago

    Regardless of technical detail, this is a service, and as such it is about money. More precisely, to get more money from people while giving them way less they get now.
    By the way, I don't agree with the assessment of the possible audience of onlive. People who are not really into gaming are not going to spend a dime to play the games in the first place, so it's highly doubtful they will use this. And regular gamers can get their games cheaper somewhere else.
    Note to publishers: people are not stupid and can count very well, especially their own money.
    As they say in wow, kthxbai.

  • SpaceMonkey77 #31 2 years ago

    This is the first DF article I've read, (shame on me), and I have to say it was a great interesting read.

    So, I'm not at all surprised that the dice have fallen this way for OnLive. Its like having a being given a limo to drive, to replace your regular car, for those kids you might have in the future, very nice, but not needed and as such will fail.

    OnLive, while nice impressive tech, is already treading water for its life. Indeed the tech could be interesting in DVRs etc, but beyond that, it will bomb. $15 a month ($180 a year), when you can play on a PC for free, and get PC games cheaper new than console versions. On top of that, the PC has a great and unique culture of mod scene, which would die if OnLive ever became popular, and with the likes of Valve and Steam around, I just don't see that happening.

    Nice try, Perlman. Close but no cigar.

    Lastly, IMO, EULAs are a load of legal crap that gamers (and many media consumers) don't care about. Gamewise, if the greed of the publishers is so great for those few extra pennies, they think they are entitled to, then perhaps the whole industry should just fold and collapse. We'll just play, trade and enjoy without new product. Remember Publishers, there's a reason why Caesar wanted reminding, that he was just a man, food for thought that they shouldn't tempt fate. If you aren't going to bother chasing people for old arcade roms (hey, you owe me 15p from that game I made in 1983, lol), don't bother doing so for pre-owned games. If it wasn't for the evil glint of greed in their eyes, they'd promote services like Goozex, that cuts out Game/Gamestop etc, and thus there would be no pre-owned problem. But alas no, and its plain to see why.

  • KDR_11k #32 2 years ago

    You will have to upgrade when controllers change or 3DTVs become common or whatever. Doesn't look like we're getting new consoles on the regular schedule, instead MS and Sony opted to release new controllers for their existing systems and that's not done with a server-side upgrade.

  • Lukree #33 2 years ago

    Great article! Haven't read anything about the service and this article covers it all! :)

    It clearly has it's limitations at the moment but truth said it sounds like it's working better than I would anticipate.

    A thought came to my mind that perhaps this kind of service could benefit from games specifically designed for it. Some kind of MMORPG or something with superior drawing distances, graphic quality and amount of simultaneous players on screen at once - something you cannot achieve with local computing? Then even the subscription fee would make more sense...

  • Fab4 #34 2 years ago

    "will i be able to play onlive at 6.30 pm weekdays? with my "8 meg connection" that sits around 550kbps at peak? doubt it."

    If that's what happens to you then you have bigger problems than playing on a cloud computing system. You are being shafted by your ISP.

  • Murton #35 2 years ago

    Either I missed it or it was omitted, but what speed connection did you use this time?

    If it wasn't something comparable to the "upto 8mb/20mb" that makes up the majority of the connections in the UK then, for the second time this week, we have an analysis of OnLive that simply cannot be applied here.

    If on the typical broadband connection here in the UK we occasionally encounter significant lag when playing games from a physical media online, a certainty during peak times when many ISPs actually throttle our connection speeds, then how can this system of streaming a game online possibly grant an acceptable gaming experience? The answer, it can't.

  • handsonhips101 #36 2 years ago

    @Fab4

    "will i be able to play onlive at 6.30 pm weekdays? with my "8 meg connection" that sits around 550kbps at peak? doubt it."

    If that's what happens to you then you have bigger problems than playing on a cloud computing system. You are being shafted by your ISP.

    fair point, it sucks;

    I live in a rural area where the exchange is overloaded and not unbundled. we have no fibre optics or any of that jazz, we dont even get a 3g signal from our mobiles! I've tried 4 different providers over the last 6 years, including BT (its thier lines) and my friends have tried others. all the same.

    I can play online but i cant watch iplayer in the evening etc. Hence why onlive is not feasable unless you live in the conurbations

  • Dogzilla #37 2 years ago

    I'd prefer to play my N64

  • Kazagi #38 2 years ago

    Great for a first time gamer, they would never know the difference...But for anyone who can call themselves "Gamers" theres a massive difference in graphics, fps, latency, and overall gameplay...I think Nvidia and ATI can sleep well at night for the forseeable future...As for the rest of us "Gamers" using this system would be like turning the clock back 10 years, or re- inventing the wheel and then deciding to make it square for a smoother journey...
    Edited by 1 at 10/07/10 @ 09:12

  • wobbly_Bob #39 2 years ago

    this is the future of games. if you think not, you are in denial. maybe it won't be onlive but them with a tweakes tech/price or another company will be the future. the age of consoles are ending.

    thinl about it, why would a company spend up to billions risking ir all on. a console that even if its not a flop they hve to wait for years till it even makes a profit? software companies get to have their dream of full reatail, no second hand market And zsro piracy. its a wet dream!!

    everybody in the industry will be pushing for this. onlive has proved the concept and all it needa now is tweaks in tech and price. the future is this be it onlive or some other. its coming. it maybe 5 or 10 years away but its coming.

  • Geordiemp #40 2 years ago

    There will be some massive investors and money men that will be getting squeeky bums right now.

    On another point, the reason we buy 360's and Ps3 is for the exclusives, we want UC2, ME2, Crackdown, Infamous, Gears and God War etc etc.

    If onlive cant have the best games, then whats the point ?

  • Earlyflash #41 2 years ago

    A big issue here in the UK, and to a lesser extent in the US is the bandwidth requirements. 2.5GB/hour? Wow, with the proliferation of capped broadband packages this will be a huge burden.

    The cheapest broadband packages tend to be 10-30GB/month, so 4-12 hours gaming a month? Wow, that's tight. So there will be additional costs for the gamer who has to uprate their package as well as pay for OnLive subscription.

  • MaxiSleep #42 2 years ago

    This system appears perfect for MMO's, and I wouldls not be surprised if WoW II whenever it turns up uses this type of scheme, as there would be big cost advantages in only developing one client and it would equalise the user experience over a range of platforms.

  • lockload #43 2 years ago

    @shadow1979 it was tested in USA using FIOS cable (25Mbps) anyway not from the uk lol

    I cant cant believe how absolutely horrible some of those screenshots look i though the whole point of this was to have high end gaming pc's at your disposal seems like you are getting sub £130 console quality

    Ive not played pc games for at least 2 years but even then i used resolutions of 1080p with 4xAA, this seems like a step back to 2001
    Edited by 4 at 10/07/10 @ 10:30

  • AphoticCosmos #44 2 years ago

    I don't have a problem with OnLive, I think it's a good idea, but it's still ahead of it's time just like the Phantom was. DF's unpicking of OnLive basically confirmed my suspicion that they're getting there but there's still a ways to go in providing a consistent, playable experience that gamers can get at the moment from a local gaming system. It will also require the backing of the console manufacturers to get anywhere fast.

    Perhaps in 20 years time when there's a European fiber-optic network and the internet is even more pervasive than it is at the moment, then I'd consider OnLive, but right now I'm keeping my 360 and physical games.

  • lockload #45 2 years ago

    it was tested in USA using FIOS (fibre optic) cable (25Mbps)
    Edited by 1 at 10/07/10 @ 10:31

  • shadow1979 #46 2 years ago

    @ Eurogamer I stand corrected. :) ouch..

  • Darren #47 2 years ago

    Great write up. Been interested to hear DF's impressions of the full OnLive service and the outcome is pretty much what I expected, a mix of the good, the bad and the downright ugly.

    The concept is sound but the technology clearly isn't there yet and probably won't be for many years yet. No AA in games, compromised settings, a low 720p resolution, variable framerates, excessive lag (compared with a normal PC game), nasty video compression... nowhere does it even sound the slightest bit appealing for me. Here in the UK the service will undoubtedly (you can almost guarantee it) be far worse.

    I suspect the service may prove popular with people who either don't play games much or aren't fussy about the quality of their gaming, basically the sort of people who rent rather than buy games. Good luck to OnLive and all that but I'm not interested unless I'm guaranteed exactly the same level of performance as I get on my current PC.

  • PearOfAnguish #48 2 years ago

    So it just about works if you're using a 25mbps fibre connection and play games that don't have too much action. And they're trying to attract the type of people who'll get into flame wars over whether or not a game is running at a certain frame rate. Brilliant.

    "simply by adding a £80 graphics card to the base-level system OnLive requires to operate"

    Haha. This is the best bit. Buy a cheap PC and whack an entry level card in there and you've got something that works better than OnLive, plus has no subscription and you own the games.

  • mc_mclovin #49 2 years ago

    Its an interesting idea...but the main sticking point is the pricing, for 15 quid a month, you should have access to the games, not just the serivce.

    I just cant understand paying for a game, and NOT actually owning it.....its a really worrying trend to be honest.(see sony and psn+) and i for one simply cant see it taking off until they figure out a work around for it.

    Also, interesting note, if you're on a capped usage limit for your broadband (for instance BT's mid level broadband offers 10gb a month) which equates to a grand total of 4 hours usage on onlive, per month! so many would have to upgrade.

  • tachometer #50 2 years ago

    Prediction: a huge hit in Korea

  • rayscoota #51 2 years ago

    Id rather give up playing games than be forced to use a pile of steamy crap like this, No Thanks

  • mahogany #52 2 years ago

    I can live with 150ms latency, I still remember playing Counterstrike on my 56k modem with lag at around 300ms and still enjoying the hell out of it, OK its not ideal but for most games I think you could get used to it, it's the price that is the real problem.

    I subscribe to LoveFilm for about £15 a month. For this I get 2 DVDs, Blu-Rays or Games at home at any time, I can keep them for as long as I like without paying any extra and then send them back to get something else free of charge and then new title will usually turn up 3 days later. I've been a bit low on cash over the last year so have come to rely on this for most of my gaming. While you don't get to choose exactly what is sent to you by fiddling with my rental list and when I send back disks I've been sent Red Dead Redemption, Heavy Rain, Mario Galaxy 2, Blur in the last few months and Crackdown 2 has turned up this morning . For me to even consider OnLive it needs to be a service where the games are included in the cost of the subscription. Maybe they'd have to put limits on the number of games you can play in a month or the number of hours you can play but there are already really good value options out there for people who don't want to pay £40 for each new release.

    I'd say a £30 a month subscription with unlimited access to a large number of older/indie games and a time limited access to newer/premium games (say 20 hours a month?) would be the minimum I would expect to think about switching away from Lovefilm.

  • StooMonster #53 2 years ago

    Personally I don't think the likes of OnLive is for me (or many posters here), however, (as I've posted before) I can see this being offered up on Sky HD / Virgin Media / FreeSat HD set-top-boxes as they've got the hardware built in to decode H.264 streams delivered over IP. For example, the BBC iPlayer on FreeSat HD or the forthcoming Sky IPTV service (name escapes me atm). Moreover, the first 'Project Canvas' boxes will be available in 2011 -- which is the IPTV offering from BBC, ITV, Channel 4 (Five pulled out yesterday due to cash-flow issues as RTL are selling the channel off), TalkTalk, BT, Arqiva and others -- under the expected brand name of YouView, and similarly these set-top-boxes will also have enough grunt (dedicated OEM H.264 decoder chips) to decode OnLive streams. There's similar efforts to these British ones going on in USA.

    So, for a super casual with simple IR controller they're away (will the lag will be even greater?); so long as they can suck up the pricing model.

    One benefit for the likes of me (and many other Eurogamer readers) is that if OnLive is a success, it all but guarantees PC versions of hit titles that we'll be able to buy from the likes of Steam or Retail. :)

  • miiiguel #54 2 years ago

    I think it's symptomatic the fact you can only "buy" a game until 2013. You don't ever buy a game, you rent it.

  • StooMonster #55 2 years ago

    Earlyflash: A big issue here in the UK, and to a lesser extent in the US

    Why to a lesser extent in the US? If you think broadband suck here, it's many times worse there ... and much more expensive too!

  • superdelphinus #56 2 years ago

    on the whole a great article, but this bit is a bit confused re the law:

    "It began with the concept of EULAs, essentially forcing us to agree that the games we play and the software we buy don't actually belong to us at all: we merely have a "licence" to use them. Fail to agree with the often voluminous terms and conditions and you can't install the software you paid for.

    EULAs are often unenforceable and rarely tested in law, and they can't physically stop anyone from lending their games to their friends or reselling them when they're done with them. While games are still priced so highly that a purchase is actually more like an investment, there will always be resistance to platform holders attempting to stop us from clawing back some of the cash we outlaid for our games once we are finished with them."

    a 'licence' still means you are able to sell it, you are effectively selling that licence. Most work involving copyrighted materials you are actually buying licences, the alternative would be an assignment of copyright which would clearly be insane. I would presume they have not been tested in law because the law is relatively straight forward, rather than them being unenforceable - at least in the respect of who is owning title etc, though there may be issues with those that restrict your use in other ways like with Apple and their OSX user agreements.

  • Eighthours #57 2 years ago

    Leaving all the technical issues aside, the simple fact is that the pricing and ownership model for this thing is beyond broken.

  • Bohdy #58 2 years ago

    Very informative article!

    However I found that a couple of sections came off as a little questionable.

    First off, the precision of the framebuffer is reduced. The 24-bit RGB format is gone in exchange for the same YUV 4:2:0 pixel format used by Blu-ray. Colour resolution is effectively halved in the transition. Even if bandwidth was increased tenfold, that wouldn't change without a fundamental change to the video codec. As a result of all that, OnLive at its best still looks rather washed out compared to the native experience.

    This paragraph comes off as a bit odd. The colour resolution is halved yes, but you phrase that like it's a significant point. Does Blu-Ray look washed out? Humans aren't that sensitive to colour gradiation. If the video output looks washed it, its for other reasons than the colour resolution imo.

    Another thing.. you mention the $15 subscription fee a few times. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that was an 'early' claim about the price. Since then the OnLive guys have gone on record saying that the service in fact comes out to being a lot less expensive. The folks with the free year will be paying about $5 per month in the subsequent year.

    Otherwise, I'd have to agree with your point that Onlive is not really for the hardcore PC gamer. I think you underestimate the market for this outside of that group though. In the article there are phrases like "unless you have a laptop it's east to upgrade..", but the funny thing is that last I heard most people now actually compute primarily on a laptop, which many not having a desktop at all. Not to mention the pretty large base of people who love their Macbooks and ordinarily don't have any access to many of these games at all. The platform agnostic nature of this service is a big thing that I think wasn't really addressed in the article.

    But as I said, good article. I enjoyed the read.

  • StooMonster #59 2 years ago

    Chroma sub-sampling 4:2:0 isn't half the chroma resolution ... is's quarter of the chroma resolution.

    [link url=http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/4:2:0
    ]http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/4:2:0
    [/link]

    The reason why it's OK for Blu-ray, DVD, satellite broadcasts, JPEG, etc is because of the content; i.e. it is usually "natural" film/video/pictures and is without sharp edges.

    Whereas games use 4:4:4 because they are computer graphics, which historically is about sharpness and accuracy; e.g. if your computer monitor / laptop screen was displayed using 4:2:0 it would be blurred.

  • Murton #60 2 years ago

    StooMonster: The FCC is moving to make net neutrality a must for ISPs in the US, this would make it illegal for US ISPs to throttle the OnLive traffic on a whim, OfCom has actually ruled against such a measure here allowing BT and others to throttle streaming and p2p services back to the dark ages if they so wish.

    There are also more unlimited packages available in America and the fair usage policies are much more fair. But if we're to look purely at baseline speed, both countries pale in comparison to what is available in the Far East and parts of Europe.

    If services like iPlayer in HD and OnLive truly are the future when it comes to how people will consume their media, then we need to ensure that our infrastructure is up to the task of delivering to that demand and right now, our networks can't cope with current day demands.

  • la_nostra_liberta #61 2 years ago

    I love my hardware and software.
    I like play with my DVD/BLURAY copy.
    I like resell my videogame.
    I like my collector's edition.

    I like Resident Evil Director's Cut or Silent Hill 1, in my hand, after 11-14 years... still, IN MY HAND (with internet or not).

    ONLIVE, for me, you are the evil.

    @miiiguel Yeah, you have right, it's a shame.
    Edited by 2 at 10/07/10 @ 17:04

  • StooMonster #62 2 years ago

    @ Murton: yes, I've got lots of friends and family in USA and I spend reasonable portion of every year over there, and used to work there quite a lot in fact; so I'm quite familiar with "real world" access over there. Most people I know tend to live outside of large urban conurbations and their speeds are awful (even when only couple of miles from San Francisco or Los Angeles for example), couple of friends cannot even get broadband unless its via satellite, another has his connection drop every hour or so for a couple of minutes; although saying that I have friends in villages round where I live who aren't that better off and only get few hundred Kbps as top speed. And I agree about Europe and Far East, it was my implication although I didn't spell that out.

    Net neutrality is a fair point though, but it's by no means locked down in USA; for example: [link url=http://ar stechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/06/fcc-commish-slams-argumen ts-against-net-neutrality-plan.ars
    ]http://ar stechnica.com/telecom/news/2010...[/link]

    It's always been a bigger issue over there because there are far fewer ISPs and in some areas there is no competition whatsoever, so if one did "traffic shaping" the customers could not switch to another ISP if they wanted.

    Here the UK regulator, Ofcom, says that it has yet to receive a single complaint from an ISP customer about traffic management; which is why they haven't done anything, yet. But that's not to say that they won't as there is a consultation currently underway. Moreover, there is European level policy review underway; and that's likely to ensure net-neutrality.
    http://ar stechnica.com/tech-policy/news/...

  • fm5858 #63 2 years ago

    If it stays in its current form I think this is doomed, but like someone said above if this is just a stage to prove their technology works I can see in a couple of years you'll be able to buy onlive servers to put in your hotel/cruise ship (getting rid of the broadband bandwidth problem).

    They need to invest in/encourage more games where twitch reactions are not so important (rpgs etc).

    And the current pricing is ridiculous, as everybody on this thread has already pointed out. If it was more keenly priced then it might start competing with existing game sales, so the publishers would never go for it.

    (edit spelling)
    Edited by 1 at 10/07/10 @ 17:39

  • neems #64 2 years ago

    As I understand it, playing OnLive with a 150ms ping is not the same as playing Cs (for example) with a 150ms ping. In 'normal' online gaming your control lag is just whatever it normally is ie local (dependent on frame rates?), and the 150ms is your delay to the server - receiving updates, hit detection etc.

    Playing OnLive with 150ms ping, that is presumably the delay you experience in actual control. Press a button, and then you get the response. I imgaine the experience will vary from game to game, but it doesn't sound fun.

    And how exactly do you play a muliplayer game using OnLive? How does UT3 work? Are you all playing a massive lan game? If there is either a server or a host, then each client, then the OnLive client... it sounds like an enormous clusterfuck.

    It also seems like OnLive have just grabbed some technical catchphrases ie HD / 720p / 60fps, without understanding their actual significance. It's HD but it looks bad; it runs at 60 fps, but has poor response. Most people don't really care about resolution or frame rate, even if they think they do. They actually care about the game looking nice and being responsive / accurate to control. Even 1080p at 120 fps is worthless if it looks like a dog and plays like a donkey.


  • TheJuriel #65 2 years ago

    I love DF testing this out!

    It actually turned out better than I expected. Interesting to see where things go in the next 10 years.

  • makeamazing #66 2 years ago

    Well at those prices it will fail, regardless of if the speed improves etc. I am not paying 39.99 for a rented game... no way and then a subscription on top. The whole point of a subscription service is that you get something of value. From a gamers point of view that would be games to keep. Someone might say, hardware is expensive, well actually not as expensive as this will turn out to be.

  • Emmit_Assassin #67 2 years ago

    Good article, and as always, thorough.

    I can totaly see how this could work. With another couple of companies offering the same sort of service, the prices would stabilize. With the new government initiative to bring fast broadband to all of England, coupled with companies slow to roll out fibre optic, it will take time to sort the bandwidth issues out.

    Overall, I'd say that if DF were impressed with how close they've got on launch to those almost fantastical claims, then imagine how much better it will be in two years time when they've improved things.

    Nothing like this ever goes right when it's just off the starting block. It takes time for things like this to reach its peak. But I thik it could well be ruining Sony and M$'s days come launch of the PS4 and XNext.

    For me, its a definite no. I get all my games second hand, and sell them on once I'm done. Games these days just don't give me enough reason to keep them past a couple of months. I bought BF:BC2 new for the VIP code and got right royally fucked, so never again. The last time before that I bought new was Driver 3, and look where that got me.

    I do love the idea, but I can't help thinking that maybe the PS4 or XNext could well have these sort of systems in them. The Arena viewings isn't that far fetched for a home console is it? Maybe not to the same scale, but something similar. As for digital distribution, both consoles and the Wii are making way for this, so both next gens will have more of it.

    Time will tell. Unfortunatley, we're all so obsessed with not being patient that its almost impossible to come to terms with the fact that we just will not know if it will work untill it either does, or it doesn't.

  • makeamazing #68 2 years ago

    With the new government initiative to bring fast broadband to all of England

    Well they have already dropped the broadband tax which would have helped towards paying for network upgrades... dont know if you got the memo but the UK has no cash and the Con/lib are slashing budgets all over the place... so i wouldnt hold your breath.

    The PS3 and Xbox both have download buyable games, if anything is coming next after media it will be that, and still in many cases people prefer boxed products. (Most of my download stuff are small games, DLC or steam games on summer sales). Onlive is at least 10 years too early (and even if it was ok to use, the licensing and cost model is a joke which will further prevent it from taking off).
    Edited by 1 at 10/07/10 @ 20:58

  • Odessa #69 2 years ago

    a) if company goes bankrupt i lost everything
    b) what if internet is not working?
    c) luckily u said it in the end: U STILL NEED A PC OR CONSOLE OR SOMETHING TO PLAY!!!! So please stop writing u can play it without hardware. Its not streaming thru the air and apears in front of you.

    imho: consoles are really cheap. just compare it with a gamer pc!! u can buy 3+ consoles for the price of one gamer pc. people forget this all the time... And u can use them more then 5 years without upgrading.

  • MattyD #70 2 years ago

    Assuming this works ideally all the time - and assuming I was interested - 5mb/s is going to quickly bring me to my peak-time bandwidth limit with my ISP. And I have cable! No way this is going to work in the UK, where only a tiny percentage of people have access to cable and even they are subject to Virgin Media's ridiculous throttling policy.

    Add to this the political dimension of Onlive (no consumer rights, no competition, no external pressures on pricing, content availability dictated arbitrarily by publishers etc) and it's clearly not something that people will go for here in Britain.

    Publishers on the other hand seem only too keen, raising the none-too-difficult question of exactly what they see in this service.

  • uknortherner2000 #71 2 years ago

    Miiguel touched on it, but I'm wondering - what happens after 2013? If I buy a game on this service and the publisher refuses to renew their contract with OnLive in 2013, do I lose the game I've paid for?

    Screw that.

  • makeamazing #72 2 years ago

    It states on the video on one of the screens after 2013 the game can be removed at any time. Its a rental system, you dont own the game when you pay for it, your paying to only play it for a limited amount of time... this is why most of us here dont think it will work :)

    Publishers on the other hand seem only too keen, raising the none-too-difficult question of exactly what they see in this service.

    IMHO they see this as something worth trying because they get alot of cash for the game, and all they have done is rent the game out, no piracy as such, and people still might go off an buy the boxed product of the game. I suspect they havent done much work to get the game working with the system, so they have nothing to lose.

  • rojjer #73 2 years ago

    Wow. I really hope that no one is surprised by this article. the fact that the game 'exists' on a server somewhere and is streamed to you, then you react to what's happening on screen and your commands are sent back is stacking up the ms of lag time - this is a total failure before its even out the starting blocks. The only way this can work (in terms of lag) is if its an isolated system - i.e. only those playing onlive can play against others using onlive. Any other games system that is 'local' vs onlive is destined for lag fail. Sry, but there it is. Really hope those investors can pull out before its too late :-S

  • Murton #74 2 years ago

    With the new government initiative to bring fast broadband to all of England

    Except that the initiative was dreamt up by people who don't understand the finer details. The section in the Digital Economy Act that covers the broadband upgrades gives 2mbps as a benchmark but falls short of making it a minimum requirement enforceable by law. This means that ISPs that fail to deliver the government target figure can just shrug their shoulders and continue delivering a sub-par service.

    In all honesty the whole Digital Economy Act needs tearing up and re-writing to relevant to the needs of the real world.

  • PearOfAnguish #75 2 years ago

    "And how exactly do you play a muliplayer game using OnLive?"

    They said before that you can only do multiplayer with people on the same server farm. Who knows how well that'll work, though. No idea what would happen with co-op games, or friends lists and achievements.

    Anyone here want to give up the ability to call up a friend and setup a co-op session?

  • StooMonster #76 2 years ago

    Marketing 101: who is the target audience for OnLive?

  • androidave #77 2 years ago

    Can you even get an internet connection in the UK that isn't subject to peek time throttting, download caps or a "fair usage" policy?.. Even if this kind of thing worked without lag and looked just like the real thing, at 2.5gb every hr its not going to work on most peoples connections is it.. ?

  • Ryze #78 2 years ago

    EXCELLENT analysis DF. Buy yourself a beer, and give yourself a pat on the back.

    As for Onlive - no chance I'll be using it unless it's something I can dip into without subscription, for rentals, demos and gaming away from home on a basic laptop, or someone else's PC/TV.

    Nice concept, but lets see how they finance the upgrades required if they get more popular, sort out their pricing, and as the next gen of games comes along. How is Rage going to perfom, for example, or the next gen Crysis game?

    Silly pricing, and underperforming service. Get it built into set-top boxes, and get the more casual and slow paced games running on it.

  • sarcasmoidosis #79 2 years ago

    Question: why compare the graphics to a high end PC? It's clearly not targeting someone that owns a Quad and a high end GPU, but someone that owns an older laptop. I thought the IQ was good enough. Once they can fix the latency to stay steady and the FPS not be all over the place, I think they're in business.

    You pay them 180$/year and then rent or buy whatever you like. That's 540$ in three years, which you would definitely invest in something like: PC hardware, the new 360 Slim, a bigger HDD, etc. It's not perfect, but then again nothing is out the door. In the future, publishers may offer packs, discounts and everything else something like Steam has today, but didn't have when it first launched.

  • Bhav #80 2 years ago

    Great article.

  • makeamazing #81 2 years ago

    Once they can fix the latency to stay steady and the FPS not be all over the place, I think they're in business.

    You kinda dismiss this is not really much of an issue... this is a massive issue that wont be sorted out in the UK for some time to come...(and much rest of the world).

    You pay them 180$/year and then rent or buy whatever you like.

    So you pay $180 for connection and you have nothing else to show for it. Sorry but if your going to consider this service you might as well get a console for a couple hundred dollars. So get a PS3 or Xbox (ok you have to buy gold sub) but this would still be massively better and cheaper than going with this service. As a console should last you a good 2 or 3 years.

    And this lies the problem, the service just isnt very competitive for a games player. Its certainly not a good deal. I dont see many people signing up to it, and suspect unless they have rich investors will be out of business within a couple of years.

  • mke67 #82 2 years ago

    Straight off the bat, $15 per mo. and no physical disc ownership ain't gonna happen. Like the article stated, monthly cost and game demo/rental/ownership needs MAJOR tweaking. After THOSE issues are tackled, I will then move on to "performance."

    HARDCORE gamers need not "fear" this latest iteration of gaming tech. As "compelling" as it may seem, there is no value in this model for us.

  • funkateer #83 2 years ago

    Excellent article.

    All the technical problems aside, the weird thing about the whole concept is that OnLive seems to target the wrong market with a wrong pricing model.
    I could imagine an audience of for example Hotel guests in a pay-per-minute pricing scheme, but core gamers won't ever accept a clearly inferior experience at a higher price.

    And the high price is perfectly understandable, and I don't expect it to come down much for several reasons:
    1) All extra hardware that degrades (compresses) your gaming experience has to be paid for
    2) All the hardware involved are hosted at expensive datacenters, unlike a console just sitting below your TV
    3) The epic amounts data traffic required to host this service must be hugely expensive
    4) No competition to bring prices down (as noted in the article)
    Edited by 1 at 12/07/10 @ 08:27

  • Nodebug #84 2 years ago

    OnLive should just license the tech to Xbox or PS3 for their rentals and call it quits

  • scorch #85 2 years ago

    "unlive"

  • sarcasmoidosis #86 2 years ago

    "You kinda dismiss this is not really much of an issue... this is a massive issue that wont be sorted out in the UK for some time to come...(and much rest of the world). "

    It's sorted in my country, with uncapped 10 mb Internet for 10 euros/month.

    I didn't say it was perfect. But it has a lot of potential for something that's a first. I remember all the shouting about Steam when it came out. Now it just owns the PC market.

    It may or may not work, but there is a lot of potential: no second hand, no piracy, no hardware problems, publishers will be all over it.

  • super_monty #87 2 years ago

    you would have to have more money than sense.

  • makeamazing #88 2 years ago

    It's sorted in my country, with uncapped 10 mb Internet for 10 euros/month.

    I have 20MB uncapped, but i can tell you, that slows down alot when lots of people are on the internet (peak times). Also does every user using broadband in your country has 10mb (very doubtful)?... regardless of that, that will not be enough. This service uses 2.6gb per hour (or something similar), do you think throatling wont take place if many people are using it. In most cases it will. So unless you live in a country where internet is super fast (10mb is not super fast) like Korea, then once people use the service its going to get creaky.

    I didnt say the service isnt a good idea (as others said, this would be great in a hotel etc), but with pricing, speed of the internet and the renting of software at high price, its not going to work imho.

  • darth_paul #89 2 years ago

    i get the honour to pay a subscription to a service (that need a fast paid broadband connection), that then asks me to pay full price for a game, and after 3 year i risk to not be able to play the game I BOUGHT, because it was pulled from the service?????!!!!!!! FU** OFF
    Edited by 1 at 12/07/10 @ 15:29

  • craziii #90 2 years ago

    get the latency to 50ms then I am sold.

    50 ms.

    I will pay for the full game price + the 15$ sub per month if they can get it down to 50.

    after 3 years, we really should be getting a digital copy of the game for the amount of money we payed :p
    Edited by 1 at 13/07/10 @ 01:36

  • earobus #91 2 years ago

    Monthly subs, kiss my ass

  • _tangent #92 2 years ago

    Great article.

    Is it just me, or is the "you don't have to buy new gaming hardware to play the latest games" argument sort of wiped out by the monthly subscription? The 360 launched in what, 2005? So even if it was replaced tomorrow, we've potentially had 5 years out of it for £300. That's just over 8 quid a month. Isn't that slightly less than the monthly subscription fee of onlive?

    Cloud computing for such compute-intensive applications as gaming seems like a retrograde step to me - back to linux boxes with dumb terminals attached. Having more localised computer power is more convenient for the user. I want to be able to guarantee my gaming experience, without worrying about whether when the clock strikes wank-o-clock my bandwidth/latency is going to get wiped out by porn.

    Regardless though, the lag and video compression are deal breakers for me.

    EDIT: Sorry for the wonky maths - that should be 5 quid a month for the 360!
    Edited by 2 at 14/07/10 @ 17:57