The OnLive discussion thread.

[EricT]

Obviously, this thing is going to be the most talked about item from GDC for months. If you're uninformed, this is OnLive:



What the hell is that thing you ask? Well, it's an up to 720p and 60FPS game streaming utility. The concept is as such: You start the device, it contacts the servers, you start the game, the game starts on the servers, commands are issued from you, the client, work is processed on the server, and you're streamed back the result.

Cost's are supposedly EXTREMELY reduced from that of the current gen consoles, while providing the games current gen consoles/PC's get, in a much higher quality. It can hook up to your TV, Mac, or PC. Decoding is done on it, so even netbooks are supposedly able to process these games. Input can come from a number of devices, a controller that comes with the device, other controllers, and (my personal favorite) keyboard and mouse. On PC's/Mac's you won't have to use the USB device, it will be software based.

Developers/Publishers are already in: EA, THQ, Codemasters, Ubisoft, Atari, Warner Bros., Take-Two, Epic Games, and 2D Boy are confirmed, with more to come.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/47079.html

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/47082.html

Press are going to be able to use it at some point this week. Some of the computers involved are described as "extremely low end Dell's". They say Crysis will be rendered in near full quality.

My thoughts: Obviously we've all been thinking about this concept, but none of us have the money to make this sort of infrastructure a reality. Is money going to be a problem for the company in the future? Obviously, they're going to have enormous server farms that are going to cost a lot to run. Internet connections are another worry. There are concepts out there for padding lag, but in terms of gaming, buffers are going to be out of the question. I'm curious to understand what measures for client/server synchronization they have in place over this week. It's definitely a lot easier said than done.

They're saying out by the end of the year. I hope we see it, I can't wait to see for myself what it can do.

Edit: BBC asked some people who got a little touch time with it what they thought:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7962180.stm

Obviously, specific console reporters are going to be a bit biased. It is, afterall, trying to eliminate their job.

[T_M_C]

I had to doubly check it wasn't April 1st already.   

Looks a pretty neat idea and this is the first time i've heard of the device.

In theory this sounds a great solution but i can see all sorts of pratical real world issues arising.

The fact that major devlopers have signed up to it will give the system alot of credibility.

If this works at they claim, then i can well see it take a major foothold in the games industry.

Exciting stuff.

TMC

[fog]

Yeah it seems like a great idea and this sort of thing is the future in all forms of media IMO.  I'm already using Spotify for my music and while that has some initial licensing issues, having immediate access to a huge music library is fantastic.

If you think about it, the need for millions and millions of people to have a physical copy of the exact same data to be able to listen to music etc is quite ridiculous. 

Anyway there are still loads of questions but it is intriguing.  The payment model in particular will be very interesting.

Did anyone say Phantom 

[fog]

There's a little hands on video here.  It's always interesting to see these things in the real world and it initially looks to be everything they say it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7fq8NmiV8U

[TheKhakinator]

4mbit might be easy enough in the US but out here it's a bit special. The other problem is that obviously you'd have to wait until they built a datacenter close enough to you. Not to say I'm not impressed with what I saw there, assuming it was under legit conditions.

[DaZ Dicks]

This will def be the future of gaming.

With fiber optic being layed down providing 50mb broadband this service could be amazing.

As a consumer I am excited. However I get a feeling that the same will become of this service that became of the console market......Everyone will have their own version. ie there will be a Sony version,  Microsoft version, Nintendo Version and they will probably rope in developers to develop games exclusively for there service. Who knows with the amount of money being thrown around I wouldn't be surprised if EA had their own service.

My fingers are indeed crossed that this can provide what it says it can!

Dan

[fog]

Does anyone technically minded know, ignoring bandwidth, what the minimum amount of lag on the controls would be?  Is ping rate a good guide?

Also how reliable is a net connection?  I know online games do lots of fancy stuff to allow for any loss of packets of data from other players so that would suggest temporary, short, drops are still a problem.


The bandwidth required isn't as major an issue as some say, but the actual speed of that connection, it's reliability and any resulting control lag is crucial.

[JDog053]

I'm not too keen. All they needed to do was remove disks and seel games on memeroy sticks to save n space or just have all games online so you can purchase them then download them to your box, like the xbox with xbox live. IMO its a stupid idea and will fall flat on its face

[TheKhakinator]

I've seen pings as low as 4ms for servers less then 3000km away. With a datacenter in your capital city you'd probably have low enough latency for the controls not to be an issue.

[fog]

I've seen pings as low as 4ms for servers less then 3000km away. With a datacenter in your capital city you'd probably have low enough latency for the controls not to be an issue.

As low as that?  Wow.  Is that typical though and does it fluctuate wildly?

[TheKhakinator]

I said LESS then 3000 km as I was estimating the distance to east coast cities of Australia. And I've regularly seen them at 20 or less. 4ms was probably an outlier. Apparently the distance is actually closer to 1400km. So yeah. Those numbers are far less spectacular.

[AaronF]

I'm not too keen. All they needed to do was remove disks and seel games on memeroy sticks to save n space or just have all games online so you can purchase them then download them to your box, like the xbox with xbox live. IMO its a stupid idea and will fall flat on its face

I think the main point of the whole thing is to be able to play high end games on low end systems. Their systems handle the processing of the game and stream a video of the game back to your screen. Simply downloading the games would be no different than buying them at a store in that respect. Your system would still have to do the processing.

I'm still pretty skeptical about the whole thing, though. The concept is great, but if they don't nail the performance, it will probably be a total failure.

[EricT]

I'm not too keen. All they needed to do was remove disks and seel games on memeroy sticks to save n space or just have all games online so you can purchase them then download them to your box, like the xbox with xbox live. IMO its a stupid idea and will fall flat on its face

I'd like you take a look at something:



Stare deep into the image. DEEP.

That picture represents the physical volume of about 70gb's, possibly more depending on how FULL the discs are. Each of those discs, with the ability to contain around 8.2 - 8.6gb of data, to us CONSUMERS, even in whole sale costs about $1.15 USD.  In total, we're looking at around 2125gb's of data for around $285 USD. The cheapest form of solid media at the moment, to us consumers, is an SD card.

We have 3 games here: Let's just use Star Ocean: The Last Hope as an example...

It totals out to around 21gb's of data. The cheapest average price for a 32gb SD medium? 55 USD.

That's the problem with your non-disc mediums. No matter how much of a deal the manufacturer is getting on the medium, the consumer is going to suffer an upcharge.

Now onto the other matter: Downloading of the games:

http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=73822

Wait... so you're telling me, it's going to cost 100 dollars to keep those 3 games on my system at the same time? "But Eric, we already do have the option to install games to the hard drive!", but we also have the option to use, and keep, the disc due to the impracticality of keeping these giant space hogs on our hard drive. Game sizes are becoming too big, and storage mediums outside of the disc, while prospering in speed, are stagnating in affordability in size. Solid State, it's great, but it's too f**king expensive for even 32gb's in size to be really practical for most consumers outside of hosting the critical (OS). Look at PC games at the moment, we're averaging at 10 or so gb's on the new hit releases, with some games (COUGH SACRED 2) reaching over double that.

That's where streaming comes into practicality. You can do that math.

ON THE SUBJECT OF SPEEDS AND LATENCY:

ISP's at this point have to be realizing the demand for streaming mediums. Period. We're streaming EVERYTHING, from the big blockbuster movie, to the video of the dog shitting in the guy's mouth, everything is being streamed these days. I believe over the next 2 years we're going to see changes in infrastructure to accommodate this boom, technologies and techniques of transfer and retrieval that are, well... quick.

P.S. You bastards... stop making me type.

[fog]

I think the main point of the whole thing is to be able to play high end games on low end systems.

That's what they are saying, but, even if they can give the performance they promise, it doesn't really represent "high end" games IMO.  The best it will output is 720p and most current 360 and PS3 games will match or beat that and from what I know an average to low PC game res of 768 is actually higher than that.

And being able to play at higher detail settings isn't that much of a system seller either as consoles, which it will be competing directly with, don't suffer from those issues anyway.

So IMO the performance promised isn't that special and it will all come down to price and with a 360 probably down around the £100 mark by the time OnLive hits it really has it's work cut out.

Even if they sort the issues out, while I'll be impressed with it technically, I'm starting to wonder what it offers over the PC and consoles I already own aside from not having to download games (which I admit would be great).

And to think a couple of days ago I was already clearing a space under the TV for one

[EricT]

I think the main point of the whole thing is to be able to play high end games on low end systems.

That's what they are saying, but, even if they can give the performance they promise, it doesn't really represent "high end" games IMO.  The best it will output is 720p and most current 360 and PS3 games will match or beat that and from what I know an average to low PC game res of 768 is actually higher than that.

Actually, most Xbox and PS3 games are coming at you at 720p.   

Edit: This of course, for frame rate reasons. Most developers can't maintain a decent frame rate even in 720p (take a look at games like The Last Remnant Skate 2, etc. They are abysmal), let alone higher.

Killzone 2 should be applauded in this area, though, as they actually managed to deliver a native 1080i game, while maintaining the quality.