GDC: OnLive to stream games to TVs, PCs

By Robert Purchese Published 24 March, 2009

Publishers back hardware-bypass vision.

EA, Ubisoft, Take-Two, Atari, Eidos, Codemasters, THQ and Warner Bros. have all pledged support for ambitious game-streaming service OnLive.

Revealed at GDC and due out later this year, OnLive promises to allow users to play high-end games on TVs and entry-level Macs and PCs without using their hardware to power the experience.

That computing will be handled by a machine users connect to and control remotely. The only limit on resolution quality will be internet connection speed.

OnLive boss Steve Perlman also promised GTTV (spotted by VG247) that blockbuster games will be added to the service at the same time they ship to retail.

StreamMyGame announced a similar service at the end of 2007, and supports game-streaming for Call of Duty 4, World of Warcraft, EVE Online and more.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (95) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • Darren #1 3 years ago

    How would this work properly?

    Any lag and the game would suffer something worse than framerate drops, something like the game would freeze up momentarily while it caught up with itself. How can you hope to get a solid 60 fps for something like Call of Duty 4 for example?

    Sounds like a terrible idea to me, especially in this country where internet bandwidth is shared with other users nearby so you can't even guarantee someone will get a constant 8 Mbps for example.

  • Royal Fool #2 3 years ago

    It is a terrible idea in any country or area that doesn't have stable broadband... call me when you find that mythical place where latency is not an issue and then maybe this might work.

  • Eighthours #3 3 years ago

    The input lag on this will be horrible, and there's no way around it.

  • Wastelander #4 3 years ago

    It doesn't work properly in any kind of real or usable terms. Looks great in the controlled environment of a trade show though.
    They pimp this kind of stuff every now and again but it never sees the light of day.

  • moggsy #5 3 years ago

    If they've managed to get around the problem of lag then they've done a very good job.

  • chrisjm #6 3 years ago

    this wont work for games like call of duty 4 yet. lag is introduced in getting the user interaction to the server, performing the action, encoding it into video, and the user seeing that video, even on a closed network this lag is noticable to the end user. relying on isp's isnt going to be great.

  • tonyferrino #7 3 years ago

    It's not a terrible idea - it's a fantastic idea. Whether it turns out to be fantastic in practice is another matter.

    If it was rolled out today, I doubt many people would get much benefit from it at the highest resolutions (needs 5Mb) but with BT's rollout of faster BB, it could be feasible in a few years. However, some lucky folks certainly could use it, and if it worked for them the publishers would continue to support it while the infrastructure caught up.

    Speaking of publishers, if it didn't work, I doubt so many big ones would have registered their interest in it.

    IGN says they were sceptical, but tried it in an admittedly controlled environment, and it worked. The open beta in the summer will be the test of true functionality, IMO.

    The probable nail in the coffin, though, could be download limits. It would be easy to eat up a month's limit in a few hours.

  • Eraysor #8 3 years ago

    Incredibly odd idea, but very cunning.

  • tonyferrino #9 3 years ago

    60 fps is one frame every 16.6ms, if I'm not mistaken. They claim to be able to receive and calculate the user interaction per frame, and that takes about 1ms, then another 1ms to encode and compress that frame, leaving 14ms for the data (only 1 frame, remember) to shoot down the wires. I suppose that is do-able if the connection is sufficiently speedy and their compression algorithm is as good as they claim.
    Edited by 2 at 24/03/09 @ 12:20

  • gelf #10 3 years ago

    Its probably too early for it right now but I do believe that this is the future and only possible way we could have a future convergence to a single gaming format.

  • Krelle #11 3 years ago

    This will be the biggest thing ever. The "One console" future has come.

    btw, How is connection-speed coming along in UK/US/rest of the world?
    In Sweden and Japan, the norm is getting close to 100mbs. Its what someone would get if they sign up for internet today.

    someone mentioned download limits. lol, havnt heard about that since 2001-ish
    Edited by 3 at 24/03/09 @ 12:28

  • Royal Fool #12 3 years ago

    Speaking of publishers, if it didn't work, I doubt so many big ones would have registered their interest in it.

    Publishers showing interest doesn't mean squat. Remember the Phantom Game Service?

  • Olemak #13 3 years ago

    Old idea, really, they've been doing this stuff for desktop applications for more than ten years.

    Lag is indeed the big problem here, and I suppose they will have to deply quite a lot of servers in lokal markets. I don't think I'll be able to play on a server in the states, for instance. Local WiFi is probably out for this kind of setup, reintroducing the cabled home.

    But seriously, think about it: this eliminates piracy, reselling and (potentially) even the need to develop for several platforms. Server hardware could be upgraded seamlessly, unnoticed by users, and it would give telecom companies more products to sell: both hosting services, maybe the price integrated into broadband subscriptions, and even create increased demand for advanced broadband products such as SHDSL and "ADSL 2.0". Oh, and this delivery system would obviously work great for fims and music too.

    The question is: will it work lag-free - and how about sound quality? 7.1 channel surround sound eats up a fair bit of bandwidth - possibly more than the sceen image feed.

  • Gnort #14 3 years ago

    This is the future. When we have flying cars and take all our meals in tablet form, this will be how we play games. Until then, I'd rather have a box under my TV or on my desk, thanks.

  • Dizzy #15 3 years ago

    "If they've managed to get around the problem of lag then they've done a very good job. "

    By definition you cannot get around lag. The speed of information is not infinite. Like somebody said... the input lag will be a big problem. Even a 10 millisecond delay on key input is noticed by the human brain.
    Edited by 1 at 24/03/09 @ 12:36

  • crazyhorse174 #16 3 years ago

    This will never work for so many reasons.

    And I see you've done us the honour of listing them all here...

    Oh and that was more than 20 characters by the way.

    This is perfectly feasible. If people can stream movies/HD movies from the net, then this could work too. I'm more interested in the pricing and the fact that you wont actually own a copy of the game itself. Sounds more like renting or pay-per-play...

  • Dizzy #17 3 years ago

    > If people can stream movies/HD movies from the net

    Totally different technology.

    If they can get the servers close enough to your home they might be able to do this. Gonna cost them though.

    >the norm is getting close to 100mbs

    On paper.

    In reality it is the sustained speed that is important for this kind of service (all realtime, you can't buffer anything). Very few broadband providers can guarantee sustained speeds like that (at the moment).
    Edited by 2 at 24/03/09 @ 12:40

  • Thunderbolt #18 3 years ago

    Of course publishers are keen on this, more $$$ for them.

    We waits and sees

  • Wastelander #19 3 years ago

    Streaming a movie is a one-way deal.
    Hell, even remote desktopping over a gigabyte LAN connection gives unreasonable amounts of input lag for a lot of apps.
    Can you imagine trying it on your average broadband connection with the contention ratios we get?

  • neilka #20 3 years ago

    /writes letter to EA and Ubisoft about his "lead into gold" idea

  • Olemak #21 3 years ago

    Certaily great for renting games. They had a button labeled "Buy/rent" in one of the screenshots.

    If it works well, I would expect that this tech will eventually be integrated in TV sets. Then the guys behind this will be rolling in money. Good for them - and good for gamers, too, and publishers, telecoms and developers. That's the real next gen of gaming, but extremely bad news for MS, Sony and Nintendo. Bad news for Intel, nVidia and AMD/ATI too, come to think of it. That's some high-powered resitance right there.

  • skillian #22 3 years ago

    Its probably too early for it right now but I do believe that this is the future

    Absolutely, and not just for games, but for all kinds of powerful software. Eventually the only computer you'll need will be a low-power terminal, while all the grunt work will be done on massively powerful servers somewhere.

    It will be fricking awesome when it arrives. I'd love to try OnLive out - I suspect it hasn't got it perfect yet, but we get closer every time with each step.

  • des #23 3 years ago

    This is the future...

  • MoFo #24 3 years ago

    You've got to love the "This'll never work" nay-sayers. The same kind of people who would've said, "You've invented a wheel? Aye right, that'll never work!". History has proved these kind of people wrong over and over and over and over again.

  • Krelle #25 3 years ago

    MoFo +1

  • Krelle #26 3 years ago

    Nay-sayers, read this and it will make more sense I believe. [link url=http://kotaku.com/5181 300/onlive-makes-pc-upgrades-extinct-lets-you-play-crysis-on -your-tv
    ]http://ko taku.com/5181300/onlive-makes-p...[/link]

    I agree that we need to see it put in practice to know just how well it works, but I do believe this will be super big.

  • Darren #27 3 years ago

    I could see this tech working for games that don't require fast responses, say, a point and click adventure or a football manager game but the slightest bit of lag would ruin the entire experience. Remember it's nothing like gaming online, where only minimal data is transmitted back and forth, this requires *everything* to be streamed including compressed audio and video. Considering I can rarely stream relatively poor-quality HD 720p videos where I live without them pausing, playing games this way would be totally out of the question.

    I guess it isn't a terrible idea as such for the reasons others have stated but I don't believe the tech will be there for years yet, especially in this country, just as I don't believe digital distribution of games will become mainstream for years to come either. Limited bandwidth is a big problem, especially in areas like mine where it is shared with other nearby users. I'm on an UP TO 8 Mbps connection at the moment but even with 24 MBps I reckon this kind of service would suffer from lag.

    Also how is the actual games hardware allocated? Will it be one machine per person or is one machine shared among a set number of users? If it's shared then doesn't that create problems as far as processing/work load goes? If they aren't then isn't having one machine per user going to be very expensive?

  • Widge #28 3 years ago

    I would like this to work. Imagine never having to buy a new console or upgrade your PC ... all games available regardless of publisher, nice dream.

  • Wastelander #29 3 years ago

    Like Olemak says, another reason this will never work is because the people who will need to provide the technology behind it will be the ones that would take the biggest hit.

    Seriously think Nvidia and Intel will be happy supporting this kind of thing when it eliminates the need for consumers to buy their latest graphics card and CPUs to play the new games? Think it'll stop the battle between MS and Sony to hijack your livingroom?
    The technology industry is mercenary, this kind of commune gaming will be killed by the people they need onboard to make it a success.

  • skillian #30 3 years ago

    IGN (I know, I know) have a nice article about the service (sorry EG, but this article says very little).

    [link url=http: //uk.pc.ign.com/articles/965/965535p1.html
    ]http://uk .pc.ign.com/articles/965/965535...[/link]

    From th article:

    The current solution only introduces one millisecond of lag to encode the video, which alone is completely unnoticeable to you. Obviously, a fast internet connection is required on your end to stream the gameplay video. A 1.5 mbps connection (which is usually what base-level DSL is rated at) is required for standard-definition video (480p), while a 5.0 mbps connection is required for HD (720p). The actual necessary speed is a tad less than advertised, so as long as your provider says you have these speeds, you should be OK.

    Also:

    Do the games run at 60fps? Technically, yes, but the video stream makes it feel less so. They're still smooth, but Burnout wasn't as brisk as it is on a PS3, for instance. But make no mistake - everything we tried was completely playable (and most importantly, quite responsive), and being that you're able to play these games without any dedicated hardware, that's a huge, huge thing.

    If they were happy with a fast, twitch game like Burnout, even if was over a LAN, the potential is clearly there.

  • tonyferrino #31 3 years ago

    It's got respectable names behind it with experience in the field, so I don't think it's likely to be a scam.

    [link url=http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Perlman
    ]http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Perlman
    [/link]
    http://ww w.mobygames.com/developer/sheet...

  • Darren #32 3 years ago

    Pah, playing PC games at 720p? What century is this?!? :o

    720p is so 1995... ;)

  • LetsGo #33 3 years ago

    What's with the hate? This looks fantastic. Big publishers signed up too!

  • Darren #34 3 years ago

    That IGN write up doesn't sound very encouraging... games run at 60 fps technically but don't feel like it... games play quite responsive? Sorry but that isn't selling the idea to me at all.

  • skillian #35 3 years ago

    Well, if you already own a quality PC then obviously you can still play at whatever resolution you'd like. In fact with the way these things work, it might actually be cheaper to maintain a good PC and buy your games than subscribe to OnLive's service.

    However, for people without the knowhow to do this, or for people who want a laptop, or for people who only run Macs or netbooks, I'm sure 720p is acceptable.

  • tonyferrino #36 3 years ago

    It's an iteration. An evolution. We didn't instantaneously stumble upon quad-core processors, or 20Mb broadband. If it's 720p for now...fine. It's just as good as most people get from their PS3 or 360 and most of those find that perfectly acceptable. As the tech is refined, it'll get better.

    I'm not sure why people are against this (from a gamer's point of view). What are the real downsides to us?

  • General_Zod #37 3 years ago

    Hmmmm clouds are going to be the future of PCs full stop, just have a monitor and a network connection and go to a server cluster to browse tinternet, run all your apps, store your files etc.

    I dont see how it would work for gaming though as people on here have already pointed out. Lag will always be an issue and until someone breaks the speed of light it always will.
    Edited by 1 at 24/03/09 @ 13:25

  • LetsGo #38 3 years ago

    @Darren but it's in closed Beta, i.e. not quite finished yet.

  • StooMonster #39 3 years ago

    Krelle: btw, How is connection-speed coming along in UK/US/rest of the world?
    In Sweden and Japan, the norm is getting close to 100mbs. Its what someone would get if they sign up for internet today.

    UK is variable, but cable modem is mostly pretty good: 20Mb/s or 50Mb/s depending on where you live in UK with 100Mb/s in next year and 150Mb/s was announced today as being available within two years. ADSL is a few years behind though.

    US is my experience is terrible, especially if you are outside the cities. I have friends who live in CA, not even that far from San Francisco and Silicon Valley, and they cannot get broadband at all.

  • Dizzy #40 3 years ago

    >Nay-sayers, read this and it will make more sense I believe.

    We know how it works dude (VM ware has been around for ages), a lot of us are saying it will be hard to make it work good enough for a lot of games. The low resolution being one of the problems together with the input lag. The streaming lag is a non-issue, that is just a question of having enough horsepower to encode and enough bandwidth to stream. The real test is the input lag on an internet link.

    Will people play Starcraft 2 in 480???

    It will probably work for quite a few games...

    Ofc this is probably the future of all applications eventually, but I don't think we are there. It has not really worked for normal applications and games are even more demanding but somebody needs to roll this out to get the ball rolling. Maybe next gen consoles will have stuff like this build in, it will only get better if the client can process some server stuff by itself.

  • gribbley #41 3 years ago

    This is a fantastic idea. Once the kinks are worked out, I don't see any reason why it couldn't replace the quaint notion of buying a frail, expensive, hot, power hungry space hogging console unit under your television.

    If I were Sony or Microsoft or dare I say it, google, I would be investing real money into cargo crate style server racks filled with cheap, fast, reliable blades with commodity graphics cards mounted that could be installed in or near DSLAMs in exchanges, to minimise ping time and network congestion, and looking at partnering with ISPs to provide XBL style gaming services and game rental.

    No more expensive console lifecycle changes, much much less direct customer support and one hell of a simplified development model.

  • Wastelander #42 3 years ago

    I love the notion that technology companies are interested in making your life easy and convenient.
    They want to make money. MS and Sony are seriously not going to go for a model where that can't sell you as much of their branded bits of plastic as they can manufacture.

  • dingo75 #43 3 years ago

    I'm not sure why people are against this (from a gamer's point of view). What are the real downsides to us?

    I prefer my data to be fully under my control and not on some cloud somewhere as long as I do have a choice.
    Edited by 1 at 24/03/09 @ 13:44

  • UncleLou #44 3 years ago

    Agreed that it is probably the future. It will make games expensive for the consumer though, as (a lot more so than now), the entire hardware will have to be financed with game sales and rentals or subscription fees.

  • gribbley #45 3 years ago

    Wastelander: Tech companies would adopt this precisely because they would no longer have to sell you their expensive bits of plastic for under your TV. Bits of plastic that cost them billions to develop and that then sell at a loss in purely manufacturing terms for years. Using commodity tech allows them to drive the rich seam of profits in service provision.

    Unless we're talking Nintendo, of course, who love to overcharge you for their bits of plastic.

  • Spekingur #46 3 years ago

    Sending the image to your screen isn't going to be a problem. I'm guessing that this uses the same basis as IPTV technology does. Input times shouldn't be a problem either, VOD in IPTV technology uses the same thing (stop, fastforward, play, pause, etc). The problem would be the ISPs. What happens during peak hours when traffic is throttled down, for example?

  • Krelle #47 3 years ago

    Wastelander, you need to think a step further!

    To make our lives "better" is the way they earn money. Youve gotta see the connection, right?

  • Darren #48 3 years ago

    Seems to me that this service would be perfectly suited to people who probably rent movies and games rather than buy them, probably because like kelly's_h they can't stand clutter.

    Personally, I like being able to upgrade my PC, tweak the games and use the settings and resolution I want. I also like to buy games in cases and own the hardware to play them on. Sure, call me old fashioned but I don't like this sense that everything is outside my control, that I only rent the stuff I pay for and that the people offering these games can simply choose not to offer them and, that's it, I won't be able to play them any more.

    Services like Steam can be bad enough when it refuses to update a game you want to play, as recently happened with Unreal Tourney 3. What happens if your ISP goes down for most of the day or there are technical issues at the provider's end for example?

    Also many current UK ISPs have a fair usage policy in place which means that the connection speed is restricted if you exceed a certain amount of GBs at specific times during the day. My own supposedly "unlimited" Karoo package which I use has such a policy in place and I understand others do too. Unless that is dropped or changed then that would have a major impact on this service here, particularly as this requires the streaming of lots of data. Those 30/50 GB per month limits are going to soon be used up steaming 720p games, surely?

  • munki83 #49 3 years ago

    I can see a lot of problems with this.

    A) The UK broadband network isn't up for the challenge. I'm sure most of you recall the uproar the net providers made when iplayer was released and how it is costing them a fortune.

    B) I don't live in the middle of nowhere but I can only get a 1.5 mbps connection max. At night time I cant even use some web pages never mind trying to stream a game.

    C) If the net is down no games :o

    D) I like my games in boxes

  • RexRunti #50 3 years ago

    To be honest this sounds like a clever idea (and I think that general cloud computing will die on it's arse). However there are couple of things that make me doubt it will become reality. Lag has been mentioned a lot, but games like Virtua Fighter and SFIV have proved that this can be pretty much solved (though games like Gemotry Wars: Retro Evolved 2 have proven that it can't be entirely). However download caps, general slow down and occasional drops will be a constant annoyance (and less acceptable then when playing multiplayer).

    The reason I think this won't take off (at least in it's current form) is the manufactoring costs. Let's say it costs £1000 to build a server to do all the necessary OnLive stuff and run Crysis at full spec, how much will it cost for 100 of these machines? Or how much for 1 machine that can run 100 Crysis games at once? It's also worth remembering that in a couple of years these machines won't be able to play Crysis 2 (or whatever) at full spec so will need to be effectivley replaced. £50 a year ain't gonna cover those costs which'll mean pay per play charges.

  • Wastelander #51 3 years ago

    Look, if everyone is sitting on a "cloud" playing the latest games with the highest settings Nvidia can't charge you £300 for their latest graphics card, MS can't charge you £150 for their latest OS, Sony can't get you to buy into their latest console and MS can't charge you £30 a pop for a better video cable or whatever.

    If they wanted to "make our lives better" they would of joined forces years ago to make a single format, but they don't, they want to make a buck in every way possible. They make that cash by selling us everything they can. The very last thing they want is you sitting at home on the end of a broadband sub not buying their latest shiny bit of ltd edition crap.

    Besides, It's hard enough getting Steam to even work when a big update or new game comes out on my 8meg connection, can you imagine the infrastructure required when every user wants to log-on and play Crysis 3?

  • Arwin #52 3 years ago

    I think it's a decent idea and worth investigating. It may not work for all game-types just yet, but inevitably one day it will, and as long as there are game-types that do work with it, then why not start now?

  • Widge #53 3 years ago

    I remember people moaning when Windows went away from command line DOS on the path to the GUI that we have now, citing a lack of control as the main reason. Seems we can get used to it.

    I'd prefer someone else going through the pain and effort of ensuring that a game is working correctly for my gaming session. The hideous faff that I had to go through when Oblivion came out... low poly grass mods, .ini tweaks.... ugh.

  • Darren #54 3 years ago

    @Wastelander - I think the technology could work but not here and now, not in the UK anyway. Broadband speeds need to be very fast and completely unlimited for this to work properly with a user base of hundreds of thousands. That's not going to happen for a few years yet IMO and then there's the question of how much it'll all cost. If it's anything like the grossly overpriced Steam, it won't be cheap but people will think it is because of the reduced hardware costs.

  • Arwin #55 3 years ago

    Well the DOS example is a bit unfortunate - I'm disappointed at how often I still find myself having to open a cmd window. ;)

  • IronCladChicken #56 3 years ago

    Isn't this just what console developers have been banging on about for the past 5+ years?
    It'll probably be pretty naff to start off with, though in a few years (one BT has started laying Fibre Optic) it should be cool.
    I'm guessing these companies are both testing the waters and wanting to get a head start for brand recognition?
    & Since they costs are shared, none of the companies should take a huge hit
    (Bearing in mind the XBox was implememented very much to advance the Microsoft brand)

    If it works it should be pretty cool - especially since a lot of budget laptops come with HDMI ports now.

  • FairgroundTown #57 3 years ago

    > The reason I think this won't take off (at least in it's current form) is the manufactoring costs. Let's say it costs £1000 to build a server to do all the necessary OnLive stuff and run Crysis at full spec, how much will it cost for 100 of these machines? Or how much for 1 machine that can run 100 Crysis games at once?

    It doesn't work like that though, because they won't have to build one machine that does everything - there will be a cluster of cheap machines serving different bits of the equation; and they can "pre-calculate" a lot more stuff, because suddenly storage isn't an issue, for example.

  • symmetry #58 3 years ago

    Like everything, this tech will have it's pros and cons. We all know what the pros will be - the cons are :-

    1. No more mods.
    2. If your internet connection is down, you can't just play single player while you wait for it to be fixed.
    3. If someone else in the house decides to download a large file, watch some BBC iplayer or anything else that's a bit bandwidth intensive, you're really gonna notice it.

  • ChrisOTR #59 3 years ago

    This is an old idea, and I don't believe they've solved all of the problems inherent to it. I should list them, but can't be bothered.

    In my opinion, there is absolutely no way this will be a commercially successful product any time in the next 5 years, and probably not any time in the next 15.

  • Wastelander #60 3 years ago

    Has anyone checked out the StreamMyGame link in the article?
    It's pretty much the exact same thing as OnLive are proposing and has completely bombed on it's arse.

    The comments section is even the same as this one :D

  • 4thVariety #61 3 years ago

    For boardgames and the likes of Peggle, this might be viable, but as soon as we enter action territory, the fun ends pretty quickly. Still, if they position it right, there are quite some games to be served. Puzzle games, turn based strategy, board games, interactive weird shit, adventures.

    But if I was a publisher I'd not go anywhere near an action game aimed at action game fans. Having double your ping as input lag, will ruin everything

  • linksdad #62 3 years ago

    LOL! Pinball (yes microsoft windows pinball) is just about playable using terminal services (which this essentially is) accross a local network. Anything more across the internet is not going to work, anything rendered and 3d will not work due to the required investment at the server end. For full 1080p the bandwidth requirement will be twice that of Blu ray discs due to the higher refresh rate of games.

    What might work using this tech are poker games, turn based games and other games that dont require a full screen refresh.

  • Krelle #63 3 years ago

    To the rest of the world: Hurry up with the fiber optic cables, please.

  • skillian #64 3 years ago

    For full 1080p the bandwidth requirement will be twice that of Blu ray discs due to the higher refresh rate of games.

    It will be nowhere near Blu-Ray bandwidth requirements, as the video compression will be much higher.

  • metalangel #65 3 years ago

    Sorry, but no. From a super PC in your attic, maybe. But to be entirely without you games because your ISP has crapped out or is running too slowly is not worth anyone's money. Now, being able to go into Xbox Live and download (in its entirety, to my hard drive) Dreamfall... THAT is great, and gets my cash.

  • UncleLou #66 3 years ago

    I also like to buy games in cases and own the hardware to play them on. Sure, call me old fashioned but I don't like this sense that everything is outside my control, that I only rent the stuff I pay for and that the people offering these games can simply choose not to offer them and, that's it, I won't be able to play them any more.

    While I am inclined to agree, I thought similarly of digital ditribution, but got used to that so quickly (and don't want to miss it anymore) that the same probably would happen with a system like this.

  • jim1975 #67 3 years ago

    these developers are so stupid. they waste their time and millions of dollors on research and development learn and refining their technology through testing and gaining fact. when all they needed to do was post a question on a internet forum.

  • metalangel #68 3 years ago

    Just because you spend millions of dollars doesn't mean what you're doing is a good idea.

  • Valver #69 3 years ago

    I dont see how this will work financially for OnLive, let alone the fact that lag will cripple any fast reaction games.

    Behind the scenes they have to have thousands and thousands of top spec PCs capable of playing Crysis or whatever. Plus hardware to do the incredibly fast encoding, and *massive* bandwidth to accomodate all those game streams.

    And what happens if they only have 20 Crysis capable rigs on the service and I sign on as player 21. Do I get told "not now, please call back later"

  • cyber_nicco #70 3 years ago

    Ahahahahaha. Sniff. Cough. Ahahahahaha...

  • MrWonderstuff #71 3 years ago

    Any clips of this running? All fine talking about this but where is the evidence in video form?
    Edited by 1 at 24/03/09 @ 17:17

  • Ryze #72 3 years ago

    I call bullshit until I see this working (rather - play this) on a typical home broadband connection, with typical home hardware.

    It's useless if it only works in lab conditions.

  • callum9999 #73 3 years ago

    Even if this does work, games will probably be sold at their £40-50 RRP, as opposed to now when you can pick them up for between £10 and 20 just weeks/months after release. How is that a good thing?

  • Raqun #74 3 years ago

    so far anyone who tried it was amazed..if it runs smoothly on 5 mbps thats great caus i have 20/20:) And if it proves to be good a lot of people will be willing to upgrade their lines..better that that buying a new GPU every 6 months and a new comp every year.

  • peak_performance #75 3 years ago

    And here I'm still wary about digital distribution for everything but indie titles (and GOG:s excellent DRM free service of course) so I'm not especially fond of the thought of all my bought or subscribed or whatever games not even being on my hard drive. Thus if the service works even remotely as described I will probably still see it as another kind of taking-away-control-from-my-games-kind of service.

    But hey, if some people like it, all the power to them - there however is a problem if in ten years or so only this type of gaming is available, with or without all highly likely problems connected to it.

    Call me old fashioned. I like it that way, newbies.

    Edit: Oh, and the command line is highly underrated as a tool btw.
    Edited by 1 at 24/03/09 @ 21:24

  • beep #76 3 years ago

    I can't imagine the type of servers they expect to supply 1,000,000 customers with Crysis at max settings, high resolution, and 60fps.

  • mega7ech #77 3 years ago

    It maybe me being completely stupid here but how would you "save" your games on such a system? Streaming a few goes on the latest FPS is all well and good but I wouldnt like to stream through a play of say Fallout 3! I may of missed something here though.....

  • metalangel #78 3 years ago

    Given the amount of bandwidth you'll be burning through streaming a game, locally stored savegames wouldn't be a problem. Nor, though, would savegames tied to the account you'll need to access the service.

    @peak performance: Hell yeah, I'd go back to DOS if I still used an IBM compatible (there's another old term) at home. At work, everything's administrator locked out to stop people like me doing just that.

  • mega7ech #79 3 years ago

    I see :)

  • blackbriar101 #80 3 years ago

    The fact that sony and MS would be put seriously out of pocket means that they will probably do everything in their power to slow down the evolution of this technology.Maybe in about 5 years time when more people have broadband Onlive could take over.You cant deny its appeal though.Could someone explain how streaming a game to your pc while playing online would not crash the servers,taking into account the amount of online users?

  • Linkified #81 3 years ago

    Seen as theyve focused on the lag alot and 7 years in development it could work, however, this is for PC games - Europe plays the higheset propotion of PC games her in UK -> That is dumb.

    They have been creating there own servers etc.

  • Spekingur #82 3 years ago

    I would think that this is something MS would like since they quite like digital distribution nowadays and this could count as one. They would, however, not enjoy the high income of a console machine - although, if you'd consider that this mini-console would probably be really cheap to make and sell it would probably sell very well.

    Where there is a will there is a way. Funnily enough, it was once thought man couldn't go to the moon. If we humans can do that then I would think that this sort of thing is peanuts compared going to the moon.

  • Lamont #83 3 years ago

    I would love it if this put Sony, Microsoft and (especially) Nintendo out of the console business. Easier to develop for, better quality. I'm all for it.
    Edited by 1 at 25/03/09 @ 06:35

  • Fab4 #84 3 years ago

    If it works we can all move on to "my TV/Monitor is better than yours" posts....don't worry.

  • FWB #85 3 years ago

    It's neither an odd nor a novel idea. It's a natural progression and the way everything will go, not just games but all software. I'm a bit cynical that it can be implemented now since I doubt the speeds are available, but then I'm not a techy, so what do I know?

  • metalangel #86 3 years ago

    Just occurred to me (on the train) this wouldn't work for mobile gaming (which sucks on anything other than a DS but still) as I lost my 3G connection five times in the last 20 mins due to cuttings, tunnels, etc. So you will still have old fashioned local storage of you handhelds... and people might like the convenience and reliability of that so much that this preposterous streaming solution dies a death. Honestly, it's bad enough being a slave to my crappy ISP for multiplayer, never mind single player too. Especially as everyone wants this service to play single player Crysis ;)

  • Bennicus #87 3 years ago

    I can't imagine the type of servers they expect to supply 1,000,000 customers with Crysis at max settings, high resolution, and 60fps.
    Yeah, even if the lag and traffic shaping and monthly bandwidth limits weren't an issue (which it still would be in most places in the UK at least), they will need to supply a beefy rig for every single customer wanting to play games like this, which ain't gonna happen. So that means either a queueing system, or various levels of subscription depending on what games you want to play, something like that. Sounds pretty clunky.

  • mega7ech #88 3 years ago

    @Spekingur

    "Funnily enough, it was once thought man couldn't go to the moon. If we humans can do that then I would think that this sort of thing is peanuts compared going to the moon."

    Dude, the moon landings were faked, just ask teh internets!

  • Carpathian #89 3 years ago

    System launches.

    Gripes get ironed out.

    Everybody loves system and buys into it.

    Traditional consoles start to lose pull for punters.

    System gets dominant share of market.

    Monthly subscription prices go up.

    Monthly subscription prices go up.

    Monthly subscription prices go up.

    Monthly subscription prices go up.

    Yes, I'm being a little cynical but does anybody really think this latter end won't be the case?

  • Spekingur #90 3 years ago

    @mega7ech: I have read teh internets and I has seen its. If faked then damned well done. I can drop the moon-landing thing and point out that we have sent stuff to Mars. :p

  • Fab4 #91 3 years ago

    Anyone who thinks the Moon landings were faked should do some investigation into the subject of Lunar Laser Ranging. Having done so you'll find that the crew of Apollo 11 placed a reflector array on the moon that was detectable from Earth, and could only have been placed manually, due to its size (larger than the reflectors placed during Russian un-manned missions). These reflectors have been used by a very large group of non-aligned scientists since their placement.

  • robliveuk #92 3 years ago

    If this works it has so much potential, to businesses and consumers alike. The basic idea behind this technology is nothing new, as an example Dell offer a device that can connect to one of their 3D render blades over the internet (which has a high tendancy to lag) or within a local or wide area network.

    If Onlive has found a solution to the lag issue then they have the potential to resell the technology which can be applied into mutliple industries. 3D and Architectural firms can cut costs by using similar devices to connect to some high end servers, inside or outside the network.

    Obviously for commerical use as a service there are a lot of implications to consider;

    Rolling out a number of data centres in proportion to the potential number of users in the area (this could probably be done based on how available broadband is within a set area)

    The speed and reliability of broadband, which has improved though users would need to be made aware of bandwidth usage as a lot of providers set bandwidth limits

    Pricing structure - as this is a service where everything is stored and accessed remotely, I personally believe a subscription based service is the way to go, similar to metaboli in that respect - pay a basic fee to access the onlive service then pay a certain level on top of that depending on the types of games you play or how many you play. If you were to buy games through the service, they need to offer a way to download the game incase you want to leave the service (or if the company fails, which I hope it doesn't) This way I believe people will feel more comfortable buying games as they can always take that game with them if anything should happen.

    I don't see this service replacing consoles or even gaming PCs, but I do see it as an addition to your PC/console and I hope it does well....just please don't be another Phantom

  • abcdecoy #93 3 years ago

    Have they discovered some way to send information faster than the speed of light?
    Load up quake or something and hop on a server with all the client side prediction turned off.
    It is horrible even at 30ms.

  • sneetch #94 3 years ago

    I've seen a lot of "this is the future" comments, perhaps it is, but it's also the ancient past (in computing terms) guys.

    These things come in cycles: they have invented nothing here they're just polishing up an old concept, tweaking it and shoving it out there again. IIRC SUN was making a big push in the mid-nineties and had the pundits prophesying that we'd all be using thin clients with massive servers in the future and yet I'm still using a desktop PC to develop software about 10-15 years later. There is one very simple reason for this: 20 PCs are a lot cheaper than a server capable of doing the work of 20 PCs and if it just means you're running 20 super-PCs in a data centre (or data centres) somewhere and people have to use thin clients to access them (at varying latencies) then what's the point? This service won't be cheap and you won't really be saving money here, someone has to pay for all those PCs and hosting them. You might save on software sales but to be honest if I was Mr Software Publisher I'd be expecting a damn good return for any of my games that are offered on this service.

    As it stands client-server protocols for games aren't exactly excellent (bloody Source engine) and lag affects them terribly. Not visibly so as your client and the server does its best to predict and estimate positions and so on, but I reckon all of us who play FPSs online have had times where you're absolutely positive that you hit that guy and yet he pirouettes and nails you and runs off with full health (bloody CS).

    At the moment the lag is purely between your client and the server and the other players' clients. Over and back, from my client to yours, with very good pings (< 50ms) it can easily lead to delays of 1/10th of a second. With bad pings (say > 250ms) it can be more than 1/2 a second. If you're not used to online games then that may not seem a lot but can have a huge effect: if you have 1/2 a second where the opposition's clients haven't registered your position you can do a lot of damage.

    This set-up would add an extra stages of lag: the information now must go from my thin client to the machine doing the rendering for me to the server to the other rendering machines to the other players' thin clients. I'm not sure if it'll be like shouting instructions at the person with the controllers but it won't be as responsive as the current set-up. Unless they've invented magic, that is. :)

  • Malixu #95 3 years ago

    Okay, Malixu does networking 101...

    BANDWIDTH DOESN'T MATTER

    I don't care if it uses 5 down, and you've got 500/500, it won't make the slightest bit of difference if your LATENCY is too high. That's your killer here. They can go "Oh, we can do the processing in under a millisecond" all they like, it takes 14ms for network traffic to get off my ISPs network, let alone over to a remote system and back again. Beyond that, that assumes a UDP or ICMP packet; you add error handling and in-order arrival (so something like TCP), and you've just added more delay due to processing. This is easy in a lab/doing a demo where they can matrix a half-dozen top of the line Cisco switches together, call me when they have it working over anything remotely like the Internet.

    Secondly, it doesn't scale. Hands up everyone on ADSL in the UK... odds on, you've got a 50:1 contention ratio. It'll be in the small print of your ISP stuff somewhere (business lines are 20:1, and there's some other numbers out there in corner cases). That means, if you have an 8Mb/s line, that you're sharing that 8Mb/s with 50 other people. If they all try using it at maximum capacity at once, you'll only get 160Kb/s. This is because your ADSL line is only to the exchange, where they multiplex (join together) all the connections into one really big connection that makes the next step up. Odds on there's several more steps like that going up through your ISP's network, until it all comes out at a tiny fraction of the maximum bandwidth that could be used if all the customers wanted to max out their connections at once. If you want to know you have that much bandwidth all the way to the Internet, you can pay for it; call your ISP and asked for their leased line (T1/T3) prices. I'd suggest you're sitting down before they tell you.

  • haoya #96 2 years ago

    for cocktail dresses, dresses for prom, homecoming dresses, and evening dresses. Cheap prom dresses or couture designer evening gowns for your next formal.
    evening dresses
    Wedding Gowns
    Evening Gowns