OnLive: on-demand video game distribution system announced at GDC 09

[Casio]

The thing is, the target demographic for this service is people who don't have a high-end computer or Console, and these people aren't generally the type of people with ridiculously high-speed connections. People aren't going to want to pay $XX for a High-Speed 10Mbps+ Unlimited Data Connection, AND a subscription fee to this service, you could probably buy a new physical game every month for that price.

And another thought, where on earth is OnLive getting the processing power for all this content. All this 720p data has to be processed somewhere, are they going to buy 100,000 graphics cards and then have to upgrade them every year when they become obsolete?

But the latency issue still overrides everything. Trying pinging Google or GTP. On GTP with only 32 bytes of data I've got a 252ms return time. Try playing any game with 252ms of Input Delay without going crazy in about 5 minutes. Even Pinging my own ISP I get an average delay of 27ms. Which is still probably too high for gaming. And remember this is with only 32bytes of data, compared to the probably millions (too lazy to calculate) 720p or more.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Well said F_K and Casio... these are critical issues that OnLive will certainly suffer from.

Well apart from the fact that it is a different way to play and distribute games, I think that this system will dramatically shift the power back to where it belongs - with the developers. They will be able to create the game how they want, and have it run how they want - no more coding for exotic proprietary hardware.

Actually it's quite the opposite... assuming as you have that this would somehow replace all other platforms... which as pointed out by several sources and people is extremely unlikely to happen any time soon, and based on the history of video game platforms and competition for the consumer dollar, it likely won't ever replace competing platforms to be the only platform for developers to make games for... and that's a good thing.

If developers only had one platform to develop for then it will NOT dramatically shift the power back to where it belongs - with the developers. What it would do is dramatically shift the power to OnLive as they would not only have total control of the hardware specifications, but they would also have total control over distribution... how on earth anyone could say that empowers game developers is beyond me!

However, what it would do is empower lazy game developers who could care less about getting the best possible performance and features for their games, and who don't take the time to properly port their games from one system to another... but in no way does this ensure the consumer will get anything innovative.

In fact it is competition that drives innovation, especially with the hardware, and if OnLive was the only way to get and play our games, while developers would still be competing against each other, the hardware would not... and based on OnLive's current capabilities, and that of the foreseeable future, would be a major step backwards to what we already have now.

If this service is a success (and I believe it will be), then there will be a seismic shift in the games industry. In the long run, it is us, gamers that will benefit, which is a good thing. 👍

Yes, because we all know from history how much the lack of competition has helped consumers.

Fortunately, based on the low quality, compressed 720p performance and the high bandwidth needed, there is no chance any time soon for OnLive to replace current video distribution models... but as a new player, it is a welcome addition to the competition, that at least offers what might be a convenient way to play some video games, although certainly not at the level of quality that meet the standard already set by PC, 360, and PS3 platforms.

And for those wishing that developers only had one platform to program for, then if anything they should be strongly against this new service as guess what... it is just adding one more different platform with different hardware specification that must now be accounted for... but speaking personally, giving gamers more options and forcing manufacturers, distributors, and developers to compete for our dollar is what ensures that we not only get innovative products, but at competitive prices as well. 👍

As far as I am aware, there are not that many 1080p games for the PS3 at present.

There are actually quite a few, and the list continues to grow each year.

There are a few, but they suffer from the same limitations that you talk about. Not every gamer has a 1080p capable monitor or flat screen TV. 720p is a good standard to aim for, as it has the largest market penetration of all the HD standards. 👍

Really? Can you cite your source that says 720p has the largest market penetration of all the HD standards.

While you are at it, you may want to also compare recent sales of 720p and 1080p displays and see which is outselling the other... at least in the US, where OnLive is *currently only scheduled to be available in.

* Last I checked, OnLive currently has no plans to offer their service in the UK or anywhere other than North America - which again is another indicator among many that OnLive is not at all in a position to make any major shift in the video game industry.

This is a moot point. I've been playing mutiplayer on my PS3 and been booted off the PSN. Loosing a connection happens, its a fact of life for online gamers, Onlive will be no different. 👍

I think you are missing the point entirely. On a PC, console, etc, you can play offline. That isn't even an option with OnLive... again, possibly the biggest reason this service will NEVER replace all other gaming platforms.

Again, this is another moot point. If I have my PC running at the same time as my PS3, then I can suffer from the same problem. 👍

Wrong... they are very different in the way they must use the internet and the amount of data that must be received and transmitted. I've played LittleBigPlanet online with someone that only had a 256kbps download speed... at 720p. OnLive would require a 5Mbps just for 720p... and based on comments from those that have actually seen the service in action from OnLive themselves with an undoubtedly rock solid connection, the quality still suffered from additional compression:

Our hands-on time with the kit at GDC 2009 is a best-case scenario, as it was playing Crysis on "luxury" detail levels at the Crytek booth all those years ago running on beamed-back-from-the-future PCs to ensure no one griped about performance. Riddle me this: How's Crysis run at maximum grandeur on your PCs these days? For a relative few of you, the answer may be "not bad." For the rest, you're probably still dialing things down considerably.

OnLive promises to make the prettiest settings a collective reality, but sending true 720p pictures across a 5Mbps minimum broadband link in realtime isn't possible. The solution? Compression, which blurs the picture slightly. Microsoft and Sony do something similar with their on-demand digital movie services. Oh sure, the picture runs at 720p resolution, but it's like the difference between a 44.1KHz MP3 ripped at 128Kbps vs. 320Kbps. Watch a 720p movie on a Blu-ray disc and compare with the download version. You'll instantly see what I mean.

What's more, OnLive claims "any time, any where" access, but it won't be. Not really. You'll have to have dedicated broadband access for starters, which isn't everywhere. And while the local coffee shop or library or airport may be offering, you're sharing those nodes with who-knows-how-many others. What OnLive needs to work is what I'll dub "deterministic broadband," i.e. guaranteed, non-shared, uninterruptible speed. In short, it needs the reliability you expect from a hardline TV signal. Broadband isn't there yet, nor are ISPs willing to offer performance guarantees.

All that being said, I still firmly believe this service could be a great addition to the market, especially for basic social gaming, like Wii games, but in no way do I think this service could in any way hope to replace all video game platforms... there are simply far too many obstacles, a very limited market, and the competition to great for that to happen. Which is a good thing in my opinion, because if this was our only choice to play games, it would be an unmitigated disaster for the consumer.

The good news is that OnLive has almost no chance what so ever of replacing all other platforms, thus instead of eliminating competition it will add to it, and offer us gamers more options to choose form, not less. 👍

 

[FoolKiller]

But the latency issue still overrides everything. Trying pinging Google or GTP. On GTP with only 32 bytes of data I've got a 252ms return time. Try playing any game with 252ms of Input Delay without going crazy in about 5 minutes. Even Pinging my own ISP I get an average delay of 27ms. Which is still probably too high for gaming. And remember this is with only 32bytes of data, compared to the probably millions (too lazy to calculate) 720p or more.

This sounds like gaming via Remote Play on my PSP. There is a slight delay. It makes Little difference in strategy games and can even be adapted too in hack n slash games, but my first attempt at a racing game was my last.

And speaking of latency, someone already made comic about it.

If developers only had one platform to develop for then it will NOT dramatically shift the power back to where it belongs - with the developers. What it would do is dramatically shift the power to OnLive as they would not only have total control of the hardware specifications, but they would also have total control over distribution... how on earth anyone could say that empowers game developers is beyond me!

However, what it would do is empower lazy game developers who could care less about getting the best possible performance and features for their games, and who don't take the time to properly port their games from one system to another... but in no way does this ensure the consumer will get anything innovative.

Why did I think of the iPhone app store while reading this?

And for those wishing that developers only had one platform to program for, then if anything they should be strongly against this new service as guess what... it is just adding one more different platform with different hardware specification that must now be accounted for... but speaking personally, giving gamers more options and forcing manufacturers, distributors, and developers to compete for our dollar is what ensures that we not only get innovative products, but at competitive prices as well. 👍

Actually, if I had to take a wild guess, it will probably use a PC-like platform for simplification purposes. Run everything on PC hardware and have whatever the server Os is be a Windows compliant type thing (my technical description suffers from lack of knowledge here) and they don't have to force a new system port. Of course, for PC gamers the purpose of OnLive becomes pointless.


The bigger issue I see is that this generation has created a lot of innovation in controls. The Wii is almost purely motion based, the PS3 uses some motion, the 360 has no motion, but is looking to adapt third-party hardware for it. And we have instrument peripherals, Balance Boards, dance mats, "light" guns, steering wheels, etc. Are they incorporating all of this? Their controller looks like a reworked 360 controller. And that brings up another thing: I personally prefer the PS3 controller, Magburner prefers backward, upside down, non-thumb using oddity, and others prefer 360 controllers, Gamecube controllers, or keyboards and mice. Are they also going to be the end-all in controller design?

And what if their controller has a poorly designed part, like the 360 D-pad, or poor resistance shoulder buttons? No competition means no need for them to redesign.


I think that, like all current consoles, only certain people will prefer this, but not enough to put the console companies out of business.

OnLive's biggest problem will come from exclusives. Current consoles have exclusives, many designed in-house by the console makers. If Sony's gaming division goes under due to this will they spin off PD or do they go down with them? For this to come along after the business has gone through a huge run of M&A means that the best games we all love on our specific consoles may not ever make their way to OnLive.

Plus, we are entrenched with our consoles. We all own games for them, and I still own some PS1 games as well as PS2 and XBox. If Sony or Microsoft just put out a new console with a few good exclusives and backward compatibility people, including OnLive users will keep buying them.

Like I always say, "As long as there is a Gran Turismo there will be a PlayStation in my house."


My final thought is that if they have just now started sign ups for their beta testing then they aren't at 100% yet, and the alpha testing has probably not been tested at distances further than within their own city, and using the same ISP.

If OnLive is even successful, replacing consoles is so far off to not be a serious topic, will be determined by the beta testing. They better have it right now because all it takes is a few bad reports early on (and someone will violate NDAs) to make this disappear.

 

[Tornado]

All that being said, I still firmly believe this service could be a great addition to the market, especially for basic social gaming, like Wii games, but in no way do I think this service could in any way hope to replace all video game platforms...

I don't think that would even happen. I think the only market that this system could really service would be the very casual gamers (as in Peggle casual), and anyone with a PC made in the past 10 years can sign up for a digital distribution service that would give them games of that ilk.

 

[Casio]

I just had another thought, if they are using compression I'd be interested on how they're also doing this in real-time. An example used above was PSN movies, however PSN (and other movies) are buffered (probably even precompressed, someone with access to these no any more details?). You can't buffer an interactive game, so if it was indeed sending a compressed image then each and every frame would have to be processed and compressed in real time, again with no slow down, I'd be very interested on how they managed to achieve this. It could probably be done if they were streaming PacMan, but just with the sheer amount of data we're talking about here, the numbers just don't add up.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Sony recently filed patents and trademarks for PS Cloud at the USA Patent & Trademark Office:

GOODS AND/OR SERVICES

• International Class: 009
  
  Class Status: Active
  
  CLOUD COMPUTING DATA CENTER MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE; COMMUNICATIONS SOFTWARE FOR CONNECTING INTERNET RADIO; COMMUNICATIONS SOFTWARE FOR CONNECTING INTERNET RADIO FOR HAND-HELD GAMES WITH LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAYS; COMPUTER GAME PROGRAMS; COMPUTERS; CONSUMER VIDEO GAME CONSOLES FOR USE WITH AN EXTERNAL DISPLAY SCREEN OR MONITOR; DOWNLOADABLE ELECTRONIC PUBLICATION IN THE NATURE OF MAGAZINES, BOOKS AND NEWSPAPERS IN THE FIELD OF MUSIC, VIDEO AND VIDEO GAME; DOWNLOADABLE IMAGE FILES VIA THE INTERNET; DOWNLOADABLE MUSIC FILES VIA THE INTERNET; ELECTRONIC CIRCUITS AND CD-ROMS, ALL ENCODED AUTOMATIC PLAYING PROGRAMS FOR ELECTRONIC MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS; GAME PROGRAMS FOR HAND-HELD GAMES WITH LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAYS; GAME PROGRAMS FOR MOBILE PHONE; GAME PROGRAMS FOR CONSUMER VIDEO GAME MACHINES; HAND-HELD DIGITAL AUDIO PLAYERS; METRONOMES; PERSONAL DIGITAL ASSISTANTS; PHONOGRAPH RECORDS FEATURING MUSIC; PRE-RECORDED VIDEO DISCS AND VIDEO TAPES FEATURING MUSIC, COMEDY, DRAMA, ACTION, ADVENTURE OR ANIMATION
  
  
• International Class: 038
  
  Class Status: Active
  
  AUTOMATIC TRANSFER OF DIGITAL DATA BY TELECOMMUNICATIONS; BROADCASTING SERVICES AND PROVISION OF TELECOMMUNICATION ACCESS TO AUDIO CONTENT PROVIDED VIA AN ON-DEMAND SERVICE VIA THE INTERNET; BROADCASTING SERVICES AND PROVISION OF TELECOMMUNICATION ACCESS TO AUDIO CONTENT PROVIDED VIA THE INTERNET; BROADCASTING SERVICES AND PROVISION OF TELECOMMUNICATION ACCESS TO TELEVISION PROGRAMS PROVIDED VIA AN ON-DEMAND SERVICE; BROADCASTING SERVICES AND PROVISION OF TELECOMMUNICATION ACCESS TO VIDEO AND AUDIO CONTENT PROVIDED VIA A VIDEO-ON-DEMAND SERVICE; BROADCASTING SERVICES AND PROVISION OF TELECOMMUNICATION ACCESS TO VIDEO AND AUDIO CONTENT PROVIDED VIA AN ON-DEMAND SERVICE VIA THE INTERNET; CABLE TELEVISION BROADCASTING; COMMUNICATION BY COMPUTER TERMINALS; COMMUNICATION BY MOBILE TELEPHONE; COMMUNICATION BY TELEPHONE; COMMUNICATION SERVICE BY MEANS OF COMPUTER TERMINALS, VIDEO GAME CONSOLES OR HAND-HELD GAMES WITH LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAYS; ELECTRONIC MAIL SERVICES; IMAGE AND MESSAGE TRANSMISSION BY MEANS OF COMPUTERS; INTERNET RADIO-BROADCASTING SERVICES; PROVIDING INFORMATION ABOUT BROADCAST TELEVISION PROGRAMS, CABLE TELEVISION PROGRAMS AND RADIO PROGRAMS; PROVIDING TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONNECTIONS TO A GLOBAL COMPUTER NETWORK; PROVISION OF ACCESS TO THE INTERNET; RADIO BROADCASTING; RENTAL OF TELECOMMUNICATION DEVICES AND EQUIPMENT CONNECTABLE TO THE COMMUNICATION NETWORKS; TELEVISION BROADCASTING; TELEVISION BROADCASTING INFORMATION; CABLE TELEVISION BROADCASTING INFORMATION; RADIO BROADCASTING INFORMATION
  
  
• International Class: 041
  
  Class Status: Active
  
  ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, NAMELY, PROVIDING AN ON-LINE VIDEO GAME THAT USERS MAY ACCESS THROUGH THE INTERNET; ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, NAMELY, STREAMING OF AUDIO SIGNALS FEATURING MUSIC VIA THE INTERNET; PRODUCTION OF INTERNET RADIO PROGRAMS; PRODUCTION OF RADIO PROGRAMS; PROVIDING DISPLAY OF ON-LINE MEDIA, NAMELY, LITERARY, PICTORIAL, MUSICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL WORKS AND EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS IN THE FIELDS OF MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, HUMANITIES, SOCIAL SCIENCES, BUSINESS AND EDUCATION VIA A GLOBAL COMPUTER NETWORK; PROVIDING A COMPUTER GAME THAT MAY BE ACCESSED NETWORK-WIDE BY NETWORK USERS; PROVIDING ELECTRONIC PUBLICATIONS IN THE FIELD OF MUSIC; PROVIDING INFORMATION ABOUT RENTAL OF ELECTRONIC MAGAZINES AND BOOKS; PROVIDING ON-LINE, NON-DOWNLOADABLE, ELECTRONIC DICTIONARY, BOOKS AND MAGAZINES VIA AN ELECTRONIC MAIL; PROVIDING OTHER ELECTRONIC PUBLICATION, NOT DOWNLOADABLE; RENTAL OF AMUSEMENT MACHINES AND APPARATUS; RENTAL OF ELECTRONIC MAGAZINES AND BOOKS; RENTAL OF GAME MACHINES AND APPARATUS; RENTAL OF MEMORY MEDIUM RECORDED GAME PROGRAMS FOR VIDEO GAME MACHINES AND ELECTRONIC GAME MACHINES WITH LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY; RENTAL OF PHONOGRAPHIC RECORDS AND PRE-RECORDED MAGNETIC TAPES FEATURING MUSIC; RENTAL OF PRE-RECORDED MAGNETIC TAPES FEATURING MUSIC, COMEDY, DRAMA, ACTION, ADVENTURE OR ANIMATION; RENTAL OF TOYS
  
  
• International Class: 042
  
  Class Status: Active
  
  COMPUTER SERVICES, NAMELY, APPLICATION SERVICE PROVIDER SERVICES TO THIRD PARTIES FEATURING REMOTE HOSTING OF OPERATING SYSTEMS AND COMPUTER APPLICATIONS; COMPUTER SERVICES, NAMELY, PROVIDING VIRTUAL AND CLOUD COMPUTING ENVIRONMENTS ACCESSIBLE VIA THE INTERNET AND ORGANIZATIONAL NETWORKS FOR THE PURPOSE OF REMOTE MANAGEMENT IN THE NATURE OF CREATING AND OPERATING ON-LINE COMPUTER APPLICATIONS; CALCULATING BY COMPUTER; CONVERSION OF DATA OR DOCUMENTS FROM PHYSICAL TO ELECTRONIC MEDIA; DATA CONVERSION OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS AND DATA (NOT PHYSICAL CONVERSION); DESIGNING COMPUTER NETWORKS; DESIGNING PROGRAMS FOR VIDEO GAME MACHINES WITH TELEVISION FOR PERSONAL USE; DEVELOPING COMPUTER SYSTEMS; DEVELOPING SOFTWARE FOR VIDEO GAME MACHINES; ENCRYPTION OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON A COMPUTER; ENCRYPTION OF COMPUTER DATA IN RELATION TO ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION; ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING A WEB PAGE IN INTERNET COMMUNICATION; HOURLY RENTAL AND LEASING OF COMPUTERS VIA ON-LINE NETWORK; MAKING, PROCESSING, AND EDITING COMPUTER PROGRAMS; PLANNING, PRODUCING, AND MAINTAINING COMPUTER SYSTEM PROGRAMS FOR DATA SECURITY AVAILABLE ON A COMPUTER; ONLINE VERIFICATION AND ATTESTATION OF USERS IN RELATION TO ELECTRONIC COMMERCE; ESTABLISHING AND MANAGING INTERNET WEB SITES; ONLINE VERIFICATION OF ELECTRONIC MAIL AND/OR WEB PAGE USERS IN RELATION TO ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION; PRIVATE AUTHENTICATION SERVICES THROUGH INTERNET COMMUNICATION; PROVIDING INFORMATION ABOUT COMPUTER PROGRAMS AND COMPUTERS; RENTAL AND LEASING OF MAGNETIC TAPES ENCODED WITH PROGRAMS FOR COMPUTER FOR COMPUTER SYSTEM SECURITY; RENTAL OF MEMORY OF SERVERS FOR WEB PAGES; RENTAL AND LEASING OF COMPUTERS AND COMPUTER PROGRAMS

So besides all the competition between PC gaming platforms, standard console platforms, handheld console platforms, with OnLive, Playcast Media, PS Cloud, and other cloud computing networks yet to be revealed, it appears cloud gaming networks will also likely have plenty of competition. 👍

 

[FoolKiller]

So besides all the competition between PC gaming platforms, standard console platforms, handheld console platforms, with OnLive, Playcast Media, PS Cloud, and other cloud computing networks yet to be revealed, it appears cloud gaming networks will also likely have plenty of competition. 👍

Even if these things kill consoles we will still be having multiple systems for games to be placed on.

What I see being a key for Sony is that the home PlayStation console will likely work with PS Cloud, but possibly still play physical media too.

Sounds like I just found my happy medium if this stuff takes off.

 

[magburner]

Multiplayer is the key word here. When this happens on your PS3 you still have an option to play offline singleplayer. With OnLive you are just out of luck. No games, period.

Again, similar to what I just said above. Also, online gaming, even in HD does not require a minimum 5mb connection. I am playing on a 1mb connection and my wife can use the PC at the same time. I only get completely dropped when she does something bandwidth intensive. Currently if I had a 5mb connection I could game while she looked at whatever video. With OnLive I can't even use it now, and paying the huge increase to get the 5mb connection would mean I get the same quality I get now.

That is not a moot point, that is a drastic difference.

Good point. I assumed that On:Live was a multiplayer service. I can see what your saying now. 👍

I think you are overestimating it. Ownership still means a lot to people and this will remove that. Pricing will determine how big of an effect that will have on this.

Ownership means a lot to me too. I still buy music the old fashioned way, and I never download anything. I am aware though that CDs won't be around forever. When they go, I will miss them, same with games, DVDs and the like. When it happens, I will just have to go with the flow, as will everyone else.

If developers only had one platform to develop for then it will NOT dramatically shift the power back to where it belongs - with the developers. What it would do is dramatically shift the power to OnLive as they would not only have total control of the hardware specifications, but they would also have total control over distribution... how on earth anyone could say that empowers game developers is beyond me!

Is On:live any different than Sony or Microsoft thought? Each of those respective companies has an effective hold over most of the video games market, whether it is real or implied.

As for the hardware issue, I don't know what to make of that. Yes On:Live would have control over it, but is there scope for developers to install their own hardware in the On:Live structure? That is something that has not been made clear.

However, what it would do is empower lazy game developers who could care less about getting the best possible performance and features for their games, and who don't take the time to properly port their games from one system to another... but in no way does this ensure the consumer will get anything innovative.

Like we have now with this current generation of consoles? The one thing I liked about consoles was that you didn't need patches or updates to run, and the games worked out of the bag. Nowadays, consoles are no different to PCs in relation to bugs, patches and updates etc.

I will agree that some developers (points his finger at PC developers), are lazy bar stewards, but not all developers are like that.

In fact it is competition that drives innovation, especially with the hardware, and if OnLive was the only way to get and play our games, while developers would still be competing against each other, the hardware would not... and based on OnLive's current capabilities, and that of the foreseeable future, would be a major step backwards to what we already have now.

Graphically It might be a step back, but I don't see I don't see it as much of a problem. I grew up playing games where a car was a rectangle with four squares in each corner for wheels. anything better than that is fine by me. You shouldn't place too much emphasis on the graphics, because I personally don't think that they are as important as gameplay.

I read a recent interview with Nolan Bushnell (the guy that founded Atari), and he made the same point. His argument was, that we are slowly reaching the point of photorealism in terms of graphics. And that for major advances to be made in gaming it would be through innovative features, and not how many polygons you can shift around the screen.

Fortunately, based on the low quality, compressed 720p performance and the high bandwidth needed, there is no chance any time soon for OnLive to replace current video distribution models... but as a new player, it is a welcome addition to the competition, that at least offers what might be a convenient way to play some video games, although certainly not at the level of quality that meet the standard already set by PC, 360, and PS3 platforms.

Does it matter? Look at the current best selling console this generation - the Nintendo Wii. It has sigificantly less power than the 360, PC, or PS3, yet it has sold over 50 million units! What does that tell you? I know what your going to say about sales not meaning something is good, but with respect to Nintendo, they tapped into a new market - the casual gamer.

On:Live might not be right for hardcore gamers like you ormyself, but for the casual guy that just wants to play a game no hassles, it could be a godsend. Ignore the casual gamer at your peril!

Really? Can you cite your source that says 720p has the largest market penetration of all the HD standards.

I could be wrong, it could be SD. I seriously doubt that it is 1080p though, considering that it is the dearest standard of them all, but like I said, I could be wrong. I am basing my assumptions on people I know with HD tvs, and the cost in the UK, of which there is a significant difference.

On:Live is in it infancy, and has a lot to prove, but you would look pretty silly to dismiss the concept totally. And as you have pointed out, Sony are looking into the idea, so the concept must have some merit. 👍

 

[Dazzla]

The idea is definitely very good, however that said I don't think the gaming community is ready to upgrade to ultra fast internet yet.

The cool thing is that their are still people out there with an imagination in regards to the next generation of gaming consoles or the end of them

 

[magburner]

They must be hardcore gamers at the BBC!

Here are two more articles about Onlive:

The founder of a new service that plans to stream on-demand video games over the internet says he feels like he has a big target on his back.

No wonder, given that Stephen Perlman's vision to revolutionise the way games are distributed and played has been talked up as threatening the future of the console and of retail stores.

OnLive, which was launched in the middle of the Game Developers Conference in San Francisco to much excitement, buzz - and scepticism - aims to provide high quality gaming on low-end machines.

OnLive says games will no longer need to be run from PCs or Macs, but can be accessed directly from its servers up to 1500 miles away.

Subscribers will get access to a catalogue of games and, rather than have to wait to download the game, can launch it instantaneously.

The quality of what appears on the TV screen or computer monitor will only be hampered by the user's internet bandwidth.

'Last generation'

While many attending GDC were impressed by the possibilities of how OnLive will digitally distribute video games, just as many were sceptical.

Mr Perlman says he understands this: "I am an inventor, and people never believe what inventors say might be possible, so I am used to naysayers."

One claim many have questioned is OnLive's statement that its "micro-console" will also be "the last one you'll buy".

But Mr Perlman told the BBC: "The consequences for the user are going to be huge. Consumers who are fed-up (of) buying expensive hardware or the next console will truly benefit."

Analyst Michael Pachter of Wedbush Morgan Securities agrees: "I think we've seen the last generation of consoles.

"Third-party publishers are not going to support a PS4 or Xbox 720. The content is not going to change in any meaningful way because the publishers can't afford it."

Other analysts are not so sure. Colin Sebastian of Lazard Capital argued at another conference, GamesBeat, that there would be one more generation, hitting stores by 2012.

Joseph Olin of the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences told BBC News he viewed the debate as beneficial for gamers.

"If anything, competition from OnLive will improve the breed and I think the instantaneous nature of OnLive, or distributed computing, promises something that will challenge hardware companies to figure out what other benefits they can offer the consumer to maintain their market share."

'Dinosaurs'

While the demise of the console seems to depend on who you talk to, there appears to be much more consensus over the future of retail stores.

Respected game developer and founder of InXile Entertainment Brian Fargo said just as music stores around the country had closed because more and more music was sold digitally, so video sales would go.

"The writing is on the wall. Just look at Virgin, which closed a major store here in San Francisco. It's not looking good for retail," said Mr Fargo.

That's a view backed by Mr Perlman. "Video games are the last media primarily sold as packaged goods and, yes, OnLive disrupts that retail model."

Billy Pidgeon, an analyst with IDC, agreed that digital downloads were the way forward.

"Companies that make disc-only games will be the dinosaurs of the future."

The company said that last year, players in North America spent $1.9 billion downloading games, up from $981 million in 2007.

Mass market challenge

OnLive is expected to be introduced by the end of the year, but many within the industry believe it will take three to five years, and perhaps as many as 10, to really take hold.

"Early adopters will take to this service wholeheartedly," said Hal Halpin, the president of the Entertainment Consumers Association, an advocacy group representing the game playing public.

"Generation X and Y and the really young kids will get this immediately. They are growing up in a digital age so they are comfortable embracing this new technology. The mass market will remain a challenge."

That is a view backed by research carried out by the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences.

"There is an awareness of digital distribution to play games and people are interested in it but they are not sure how to use it, so there are some motivation triggers that need to be crossed before we see wide adoption," said Mr Olin.

Little is known at this stage about pricing models, though the service will be subscription-based. Mr Perlman said he recognised it was vital to get this right from the start, but his firm was under no pressure to milk the product.

"The timing of this release was carefully planned. We are in the middle of a console cycle, so we have a couple of years to build up a subscriber base before the next console comes out.

"Look if it's wildfire, it's wildfire. We will build lots of servers and people can go nuts. But honestly I can wait a couple of years for this to work, I have already waited seven," said Mr Perlman.

'Cool thing'

Throughout the week, the OnLive stand was certainly one of the most popular, with gamers eager to test out the system.

"I thought there were some lag issues and while it's playing pretty well under this controlled environment, I would have to see how it does in my home with my internet connection," said Brendan Iribe, president of Scaleform Corp, which provides middleware for games.

Kai Huang, ceo of Red Octane said "My big concern is pricing and the number of games available, but certainly my interest is piqued."

"Digital downloads and direct download services are the future," said Marty Wagner, a student at Savannah College of Art.

"This could be great for independent gamers, who won't have to compete for space on the shelves of a Best Buy. It's cool they're pushing some hardcore games like Crysis War because that kind of thing is getting forgotten. So it's great for gamers if it all works as promised."

Mr Perlman said after seven years in stealth mode, he was more than confident but lamented that more companies were not doing more to "push the boundaries".

"I agree it sounds too good to be true,but why? People today are just too afraid to think big and bold and it's very frustrating.

"Inventors get treated like second-class citizens and all we are trying to do is improve business, technology, society and the economy.

"A lot of us have made money and don't have to work. We make a lot of sacrifices and I just think there is something about our society that we are scared of the new big inventions. This is going to be a really cool thing."

Full article (above)

The founder of online streaming games firm OnLive has defended the technology underpinning the service after accusations it was unworkable.

Steve Perlman said critics had not even used the system.

OnLive turns games into video data sent across the net to a hardware add-on, or software plug-in, which decompresses the data back into video.

The firm says a revolutionary video compression algorithm and custom silicon makes it possible.

OnLive has been in development for the last seven years and has signed up content partners, including EA, Ubisoft, Take2, Eidos, Atari, Codemasters, Epic and THQ

The subscription service will feature games such as Burnout, Fear 2, Tomb Raider: Underworld and Crysis: Warhead.

Mr Perlman, who led the early developments into video streaming service QuickTime while at Apple, told BBC News: "We have nine of the largest game publishers in world signed up.

"They have spent several years in some cases actually going and reviewing our technology before allowing us to associate with their company names and allowing us to have access to their first-tier franchises."

The service has raised eyebrows in some quarters given the difficulties of encoding High Definition video in near real time at servers in data centres, and streaming it over the open internet to a user.

Delivering real-time streaming game play is seen by some as an insurmountable problem, even before factoring in the necessity of sending back telemetry from a game controller across the net to the data centre.

"We are not doing video encoding in the conventional sense," explained Mr Perlman, dismissing an article in gaming website Eurogamer that said the service was unworkable.

"It's a very ignorant article," said Mr Perlman, who said Eurogamer had conflated issues of frame rate and latency.

"They are independent factors," he said.

OnLive has said it has created a video compression algorithm designed specifically for video games that can encode and compress video into data in about one millisecond.

A custom-built silicon chip designed by OnLive does the actual encoding calculations at the server end, as well as the decompression at the gamer end, inside a cheap hardware add-on.

Mr Perlman said it had taken "tens of thousand" of man hours to develop the algorithm.

He said: "First of all it was a postage stamp size screen with no latency over the internet. It looked like the silliest kind of game because the screen size was smaller than a cell phone but nonetheless there was no lag.

"We were running Quake actually - or micro quake as we called it. It was very unimpressive to anyone apart from an engineer."

After years spent refining the technology OnLive has said it was able to make the video window bigger and bigger until achieving a resolution of 1280 by 720 at 60 frames per second.

Technologists contacted by BBC News said that that level and speed of video encoding would not be "beyond the bounds of credibility" but would require custom hardware.

The algorithm was developed on dual quad core Xeon processors, which cost thousands of pounds, but OnLive have said they have distilled it down so it can run on a custom chip which costs "under 20 bucks to make".

Mr Perlman said the chip was "high performance for video compression", running at less than 100Mhz clock speed and drawing about two watts of power.

"We can make millions of these things. Because of the economy there is plenty of excess capacity in fabrication plants."

Mr Perlman said OnLive had already ordered a "very large batch".

He said the OnLive experience was almost as good as sitting in front of a console and playing a game.

"The algorithm is not perfect. You will sometimes see little artefacts on the screen. Video compression is part science and part art.

Net imperfections

"Every time you present new material to it, you will see something it does not compress so well. We note those and correct the algorithm."

Mr Perlman said the algorithm had been designed with the imperfections of the internet in mind.

"Rather than fighting against the internet... and dropped, delayed or out of order packets we designed an algorithm that deals with these characteristics.

"Every compression algorithm leaves something out. It's about figuring out what kind of stuff you drop out."

OnLive said a broadband connection of 5Mbps will be fast enough for high definition gaming, while 1.5Mbps will be sufficient for standard definition.

At those speeds and with a data centre no further than 1,000 miles away for any gamer in the US the inevitable latency of the net as data has to physically travel across the network is within tolerable limits, said Mr Perlman.

OnLive currently has two data centres in the US running a beta version of the service. In order to minimise lag across when the commercial service goes live at the end of 2009 the company has said it will need five data centres around the country.

"The round trip latency from pushing a button on a controller and it going up to the server and back down, and you seeing something change on screen should be less than 80 milliseconds.

"We usually see something between 35 and 40 milliseconds."

The games themselves will be running on "off the shelf motherboards" at the data centres.

The company has calculated that each server will be dealing with about 10 different gamers, because of the varying demands games have on hardware.

"Most games run fine on dual core processors. What you really want is a high performance graphics processor unit," said Mr Perlman.

He said that while work continued on refining the algorithm the bulk of the technical work had been completed.

A wider beta test begins this summer and feedback from the testing will be used to refine the service.

Full article (above)

 

[FoolKiller]

I am glad to see that Perlman admits that graphical issues will show up. So, it is not just like gaming on a PS3 or 360. However, I think for him to say that Latency is a non-issue is putting way, way, way too much faith in the Internet.

Oh, and then there is this:

Analyst Michael Pachter of Wedbush Morgan Securities agrees: "I think we've seen the last generation of consoles.

"Third-party publishers are not going to support a PS4 or Xbox 720. The content is not going to change in any meaningful way because the publishers can't afford it."

That right there is a guarantee that this will not be the last generation of consoles, and that publishers will strongly support the PS4 and Xbox 720.

If Pachter says it the opposite will happen.

 

[magburner]

If Pachter says it the opposite will happen.

Is that that guy you warned me about?

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Like we have now with this current generation of consoles? The one thing I liked about consoles was that you didn't need patches or updates to run, and the games worked out of the bag. Nowadays, consoles are no different to PCs in relation to bugs, patches and updates etc.

I for one am grateful for patches and updates, because it gives me the consumer more options. I don't think I played a single game on any console that was without bugs and couldn't benefit and lengthen my gameplay with an update... yet that choice wasn't even available except on PC.

If you are interested in innovation, I wouldn't be so anxious to go back in time now and be forced to only play the game as it was originally released, or have to buy a newer version more often.

Graphically It might be a step back, but I don't see I don't see it as much of a problem. I grew up playing games where a car was a rectangle with four squares in each corner for wheels. anything better than that is fine by me. You shouldn't place too much emphasis on the graphics, because I personally don't think that they are as important as gameplay.

Agreed, and fortunately one can have both. However, as it stands now OnLive is only offering the exact same games with the same gameplay, but very likely lower quality graphics. Which is why I asked before... in terms of actual gameplay, what is so innovative about OnLive?

Innovative gameplay comes from the developer who hopefully is given a platform powerful and robust enough to allow them to create better gameplay... something we have already seen from this latest generation of consoles, some more than others.

As for OnLive, based on all the real world issues that would limit it's capabilities and market share, there is no evidence at all that would lead to a reasonable conclusion that it would provide an equally robust platform let alone a superior one for game developers to create games with better gameplay than what we have now.

I read a recent interview with Nolan Bushnell (the guy that founded Atari), and he made the same point. His argument was, that we are slowly reaching the point of photorealism in terms of graphics. And that for major advances to be made in gaming it would be through innovative features, and not how many polygons you can shift around the screen.

That's udder nonsense, and can be proven by anyone quite easily. Just pop in a movie and compare what you see to a game with similar style (animation, horror, etc). Not only that, but compare that same movie to real life... which is a lot more detailed than 1080p.

No game has even come close to being photorealistic, but again, I don't disagree that gameplay is certainly more important, and having both is even better. 👍

Does it matter? Look at the current best selling console this generation - the Nintendo Wii. It has sigificantly less power than the 360, PC, or PS3, yet it has sold over 50 million units! What does that tell you? I know what your going to say about sales not meaning something is good, but with respect to Nintendo, they tapped into a new market - the casual gamer.

On:Live might not be right for hardcore gamers like you ormyself, but for the casual guy that just wants to play a game no hassles, it could be a godsend. Ignore the casual gamer at your peril!

Which if you go back and read my past comments is exactly what I have been saying, and why I think OnLive and other cloud gaming networks are a welcome addition (not replacement) to the video game market.

I could be wrong, it could be SD. I seriously doubt that it is 1080p though, considering that it is the dearest standard of them all, but like I said, I could be wrong. I am basing my assumptions on people I know with HD tvs, and the cost in the UK, of which there is a significant difference.

Certainly there are differences in HD adoption in different regions, but as an example of how much 1080p is dominating recent North American sales, Costco, which is one of the largest and most successful retailers in this country, and who specialize in generally low-cost bulk goods, if you walk through one of it's store's TV display area, of the 50 or so TV models they sell, less than 20% are 720p TVs, and only a couple are SD TVs.

Which is not all that surprising considering the cost difference between 720p and 1080p of similar models has largely shrunken down to a bare minimum.

On:Live is in it infancy, and has a lot to prove, but you would look pretty silly to dismiss the concept totally. And as you have pointed out, Sony are looking into the idea, so the concept must have some merit. 👍

Which is what I have said all along. However, using the exact same point, it would look pretty silly to suggest this concept is going to revolutionize the game industry, empower game developers, and replace all other gaming platforms... as it is only in it's infancy (although OnLive has technically been in development for the last seven years), and based on what we do know about the service and the limited market, it would have to change dramatically before those kinds of revolutionary comments would start to sound reasonable.

That right there is a guarantee that this will not be the last generation of consoles, and that publishers will strongly support the PS4 and Xbox 720.

If Pachter says it the opposite will happen.

You mean like that new PS3 model without a Blu-ray drive he claimed was going to be released?

I'm starting to feel somewhat bad for Pachter, but frankly he only has himself to blame for his reputation.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

If Pachter says it the opposite will happen.

Is that that guy you warned me about?

Oh how quickly they forget....

There is speculation building that they are aboutto announce a price drop sometime in April to spur sales in the US.

Michael Pachter (who at one time predicted HD DVD would win the format war) has been wrong more times than he has been right, as I am sure is true with most people who regularly make predictions, but I certainly agree Sony needs to due to consumers tightening their budgets, and doing it to coincide with E3 also makes the most sense. 👍

 

[PAPPACLART]

If I have a PC and I want the best Graphics, Ihave to keep my PC spec upto date. If I want the best console graphics, then I by one of the current consoles (PS3 XBOX360). If I wan better console Graphics then I wait for the ps4 etc.

The idea behind Onlive is that you can potentially play on any PC etc, without having to worry about the spec of your PC, or having to upgrade CPU's GPU's to keep up etc.

We already know that compressed 720p games will not look as good as the current PC/console generation of games that we already have...So what is the benefit of this? I don't want to go back a generation with graphics, I want to go forward. The graphical quality of Onlive games now will always be limited by the internet despite this fancy algorythm that they may have developed.

So when PS4 comes out and we have even more awsome graphics, Onlive potentially will still be slugging out bad quality 720p games. Of course, onlive will move with the times too, and I am sure there alo's will get better as lwell as the internet, but the consoles will always be a step ahead.

 

[Tornado]

I for one am grateful for patches and updates, because it gives me the consumer more options. I don't think I played a single game on any console that was without bugs and couldn't benefit and lengthen my gameplay with an update... yet that choice wasn't even available except on PC.

It also allows a company to shove a game out the door without having it finished and just fix it later. Major PC titles do this all the time, and in the case of console games this is actually more of a problem because it is almost always because the game is buggy or has problems (whereas PC patches don't necessarily have to do with such reasoning). I don't think anyone enjoys that particular facet of PC gaming, regardless of whatever options it gives them down the line; and the very thing you decried OnLive for having to do is something that is indeed making rapid crossroads into consoles anyway.

If you are interested in innovation, I wouldn't be so anxious to go back in time now and be forced to only play the game as it was originally released, or have to buy a newer version more often.

With some exceptions, this wasn't really a problem prior to this generation (entire series have been built around this idea without people being too bothered about it), and the "game half done" problem will no doubt get worse as consoles and PCs become more and more synonymous with each other. Strictly speaking, I think getting into the "console games are the same as PC games" mindset is a horrible thing to do; and Sony in particular has gotten a lot of justified flak for trying to integrate it as such.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

It also allows a company to shove a game out the door without having it finished and just fix it later.

They have always done it... except if you go back and play those old games... they are still broken.

I suspect like most things, as time passes we have a tendency to glorify the past and gloss over the flaws.

Also, considering how pissed off many gamers get about having to wait for games to come out, who can blame them.

At least in some cases, like MotorStorm, Burnout Pardise, and other games, developers release free updates adding gameplay features, extending the gameplay... and for those that want to wait until the game is "complete" can do what they had to do before... wait.... or go back in time and buy $50 broken games with missing features.

Regardless of the tiresome and largely subjective opinionated DLC debate that usually end in lengthy arguments, it has no relevance in this topic, unless one is assuming developers wont be patching and updating their games for this service.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

I think this idea came around at least 10 years too early.

 

[Casio]

"The round trip latency from pushing a button on a controller and it going up to the server and back down, and you seeing something change on screen should be less than 80 milliseconds.

"We usually see something between 35 and 40 milliseconds."

For 30 fps (as a rough example), means 35ms gives you a 2 frame delay on input (If I'm calculating this right) and 80ms gives you 3.

But still that's pretty laggy. All computer monitors now are at least 5ms refresh. If you tried to use a monitor with an 80ms response time I'm sure you wouldn't have too fun a time. (And yeah I realize the difference but that monitor still takes that many ms to display what you just inputted.)

 

[magburner]

I for one am grateful for patches and updates, because it gives me the consumer more options. I don't think I played a single game on any console that was without bugs and couldn't benefit and lengthen my gameplay with an update... yet that choice wasn't even available except on PC.

Patches and updatss that add functionality are good. Patches and updates to fix problems with a game that was rushed out of the door are bad! I agree with you that they are a welcome addition, but they have to be for the right reasons.

If you are interested in innovation, I wouldn't be so anxious to go back in time now and be forced to only play the game as it was originally released, or have to buy a newer version more often.

I don't see any problems with this. I have nearly 50 PS1 games, and playing them as they are, has not diminished the enjoyment I get from them.

As for OnLive, based on all the real world issues that would limit it's capabilities and market share, there is no evidence at all that would lead to a reasonable conclusion that it would provide an equally robust platform let alone a superior one for game developers to create games with better gameplay than what we have now.

Conversely, there is no evidence that it won't. I remember the first time that I heard about the PS1, it was unlike anything I had experienced before, but the promise of new ideas and concepts were enough to make me take the chance. I belive that OnLive will do the same once it has got past its teething problems (which may be many).

That's udder nonsense, and can be proven by anyone quite easily. Just pop in a movie and compare what you see to a game with similar style (animation, horror, etc). Not only that, but compare that same movie to real life... which is a lot more detailed than 1080p.

I think this depends on what you class as photorealism (as it relates to videogames). Being a gamer of more than 30 years, I can say hand on heart that todays games ARE photoreal, because I have had the pleasure of watching games mature from the very start. I also personally think that photorealism is the perception of real whilst not being entirely real.

I remember once that I was playing Gran Tursimo 4, and my dear old gran was watching. She was in disbelief that I was actually playing a game! To her, the graphcs of that game looked photoreal. To me, though, they just looked like graphics.

Another example of photorealismn is Heavy Rain. I for one think that the graphics for that game look photoreal. The detail in the face of the main character is phenominal. Yes, they are nowhere near real life, but I feel that they are only one step away. Its the perception, not the implimnetation I think that is the important part.

To Nolan Bushnell, I'm in no doubt that todays games do look photreal, but if you look behind what he is trying to say then, you can see what he really means. Swap out photorealism, and put in graphical processing power, does the statement become any clearer?

Which is what I have said all along. However, using the exact same point, it would look pretty silly to suggest this concept is going to revolutionize the game industry, empower game developers, and replace all other gaming platforms... as it is only in it's infancy (although OnLive has technically been in development for the last seven years), and based on what we do know about the service and the limited market, it would have to change dramatically before those kinds of revolutionary comments would start to sound reasonable.

All revolutions start with an idea. Going back to Nolan Bushnell (the founder of the modern games industry), do you think that he envisioned the market we have before us today? All he did was present an idea that was built upon. I believe that OnLine presents that same opportunity, but faces the same problems that Nolan Bushnell did when he first started out. I do think though, that the concept of OnLive will mature dramtically more quickly, considering the pace that technology seems to be advancing these days.

We already know that compressed 720p games will not look as good as the current PC/console generation of games that we already have...So what is the benefit of this? I don't want to go back a generation with graphics, I want to go forward. The graphical quality of Onlive games now will always be limited by the internet despite this fancy algorythm that they may have developed.

I don't think that 720p graphics are last generation, 480i was last generation. OnLive can only improve over time, and it won't face the same limitations as consoles do. For instance, if OnLive want to swap in better graphical porcessing power they could do it easy as pie. Sony couldn't, bar releaseing a new console.

Honestly, people need to stop trying to corelate good graphics with good games. The quality of the graphics in no way whatsoever determines the quality of a game. I can see why that is the case, because it has been the way the industry has evolved. But for those of us who know different (better maybe), graphics have no relevance in comparrison to gameplay, or how good a game actually is.

At least in some cases, like MotorStorm, Burnout Pardise, and other games, developers release free updates adding gameplay features, extending the gameplay... and for those that want to wait until the game is "complete" can do what they had to do before... wait.... or go back in time and buy $50 broken games with missing features.

I've played thousands of games over the years, and I honestly can't remember many being 'broken' as you put it. Infact, I can think of only one that was truely broken, and should not of been released in the state it was in - Gran Turismo 2!

What is this talk of missing features? Comparing a game today with a game from the past is not a fair comparrison. I'm sure that in ten years from now they will be saying the exact same thing about the games we have today!

 

[FoolKiller]

Is that that guy you warned me about?

Yes. When he last predicted a price drop for the PS3 (still waiting) Joystiq.com even made an entire post about how they were really hopeful until he said it and now they know it won't happen.

You mean like that new PS3 model without a Blu-ray drive he claimed was going to be released?

Actually, that was some guy no one had ever heard from before, or since. His picture made him look fairly Young, and I bet he was attempting to justify his analysis, without actually researching first.

I'm starting to feel somewhat bad for Pachter, but frankly he only has himself to blame for his reputation.

The only times he has been correct is when everyone already has pre-announcement press notifications. I think that since the latest PS3 hardware revisions he has predicted a price drop three times now. If he keeps it up he will eventually get it correct.

We already know that compressed 720p games will not look as good as the current PC/console generation of games that we already have...So what is the benefit of this? I don't want to go back a generation with graphics, I want to go forward. The graphical quality of Onlive games now will always be limited by the internet despite this fancy algorythm that they may have developed.

That and as graphics increase one has to wonder if their online requirements will too. Can the Internet keep pace with the graphics?

 

[livemusic]

That and as graphics increase one has to wonder if their online requirements will too. Can the Internet keep pace with the graphics?

Only if resolutions increase too, I guess, since you're just streaming video.

 

[FoolKiller]

Only if resolutions increase too, I guess, since you're just streaming video.

Considering PC monitors can already do better than 1080p and a few concept televisions have been rumored with better than 1080p, that is not too far fetched.

 

[bevo]

Time warner is going to start limiting their bandwith use. They're going to have an 8 gig a month download limit, which will cost 54$ a month. Every gig or meg I can't remember which(I know there's a big difference between meg and gig, I just can't remember) is going to be 1$ more on your bill. Wouldn't these kinds of limits kill this type of gaming. If Time warner pulls off this move, then everyone else will follow.

To stream these games like their wanting to would take alot of downloading. I love games, but there is no way, I'm going to pay 100$ a month for the internet it would take to play games, when I could get basic internet services for 30$ and use my ps3 or 360.

This limiting of downloads through Time Warner could really ruin the likes of the ps3, and netflix movie downloads. An hd movie on the ps3 is 7 gigs to download, that would take up almost all of your usage for the month. I would love to know what sony, microsoft, and netflix sre saying to Time Warner right now.

 

[PAPPACLART]

Time warner is going to start limiting their bandwith use. They're going to have an 8 gig a month download limit, which will cost 54$ a month. Every gig or meg I can't remember which(I know there's a big difference between meg and gig, I just can't remember) is going to be 1$ more on your bill. Wouldn't these kinds of limits kill this type of gaming. If Time warner pulls off this move, then everyone else will follow.

To stream these games like their wanting to would take alot of downloading. I love games, but there is no way, I'm going to pay 100$ a month for the internet it would take to play games, when I could get basic internet services for 30$ and use my ps3 or 360.

This limiting of downloads through Time Warner could really ruin the likes of the ps3, and netflix movie downloads. An hd movie on the ps3 is 7 gigs to download, that would take up almost all of your usage for the month. I would love to know what sony, microsoft, and netflix sre saying to Time Warner right now.

We have various companies in the UK that have started to introduce download limits, but we can still find very cheap and reliable unlimited providers outhere.

I moved to a new place last November, leaving behind a 16mb unlimited connection. the exchange where I live now was full, but one provider offered an 8meg connection with a 30GB download limit per month!!! jeez that did not last long, 3 months later thankfully I moved to 02 and have the same 8meg but with no download limit.

I think certain providers will stand tough, and not limit the usage, this way they will take customers from other providers that limit DL's. I think though as more internet take-up/usage in the coming future may force even these companies to start limiting people until we start to see the old copper cables replaced with the F/optics, but internet take-up and usage is increasing faster than the new cables are being installed.

Maybe Microsof/Sony may get into the internet business..who knows...

 

[PAPPACLART]

I don't think that 720p graphics are last generation, 480i was last generation. OnLive can only improve over time, and it won't face the same limitations as consoles do. For instance, if OnLive want to swap in better graphical porcessing power they could do it easy as pie. Sony couldn't, bar releaseing a new console.

Honestly, people need to stop trying to corelate good graphics with good games. The quality of the graphics in no way whatsoever determines the quality of a game. I can see why that is the case, because it has been the way the industry has evolved. But for those of us who know different (better maybe), graphics have no relevance in comparrison to gameplay, or how good a game actually is.

Of course, the graphics offered are not last gen, but why take a step backwards? The point I really wanted to make is; to stream 720P graphics in real time within the current limitations of average joe's internet connection, video has to be compressed loosing quality. So natrually my PS3/360 will look better, despite what ever firepower lies in one of these many data centers.

Now one of the selling points of onlive, is the fact that the hardware - namely the GPU's (that actually render the graphics) can be continually upgraded which intern means that the user can have more and more polished grahics as time goes on, potentially matching a PC and supassing the current Gen of consoles until the next gen (PS4/720) come out etc.

But what is the point of upgrading the firepower, if in the end the video has to be compressed to a lower quality so it works with a average joe's 5 meg connection speed?

Now I am sure that the algorithms and the custom chip that they have made will also improve with time, but I suspect not as fast as the backend GPU's. So onlive will never be compariable with a PC graphically unless the Algorithms drastically improve.

The second point you made and of which I totally agree is yes, graphical quality does not make a good game, but if Onlive are talking about killing off the console, then the graphics will at least need to be as good if not better...anyway I would rather a good game with good graphics than a good game with bad graphics if they were the same game etc.

 

[Casio]

Could Computing in general is in my opinion way, way, way too far off to be feasible at this stage. The general throughput and bandwidth of the internet for the majority of people to have a seamless transition from the way 99% of the world works now in computing terms. Many people, including myself, do not like the idea of not having physical media in their possession, be that be personal music, pictures, files, programs, and in this case games. I would not want to be paying, say, 40-50$ a month, to play games on a service which will have unpredictable quality each and everytime you use it. Want to play games in Peak Internet Usage Times? You're going to get a lower quality connection, and therefore a lower quality gaming experience, it will be like the frustration of cell phone drop outs.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Time warner is going to start limiting their bandwith use. They're going to have an 8 gig a month download limit, which will cost 54$ a month. Every gig or meg I can't remember which(I know there's a big difference between meg and gig, I just can't remember) is going to be 1$ more on your bill. Wouldn't these kinds of limits kill this type of gaming.

Yes.... or more specifically drastically limit the potential market for it... which is just one of many reasons why I suspect most people understand that there is no way this type of service is going to be a dominant gaming platform, let alone replace all forms of gaming platforms.

I'm in Austin, one of the first cities where this new policy is being implemented, and I'm currently a Time Warner customer. I have been playing close to $200 a month for my TW service:

• Cable w/HD package, HBO, Sports
• 4 HD-DVRs
• Turbo Internet (30/2 Mbps)
• VOIP phone service

Not only are they going to be adding download caps and extra fees, but they are also raising the monthly cost of Turbo Internet while at the same time throttling down the download speeds in half.

If Time warner pulls off this move, then everyone else will follow.

Comcast started implementing caps back in October, and AT&T has been testing caps since December...

To stream these games like their wanting to would take alot of downloading. I love games, but there is no way, I'm going to pay 100$ a month for the internet it would take to play games, when I could get basic internet services for 30$ and use my ps3 or 360.

This limiting of downloads through Time Warner could really ruin the likes of the ps3, and netflix movie downloads. An hd movie on the ps3 is 7 gigs to download, that would take up almost all of your usage for the month. I would love to know what sony, microsoft, and netflix sre saying to Time Warner right now.

Just think... if you were able to download a 50GB Blu-ray title, not only is it going to take longer, but just for that single download, your ISP might charge you as much as $50.

Even just a 2-hour 1080p movie is going to be over 20 GB.

As far as OnLive goes, let's say you only play about 10 hours a week, at a minimum of 5Mbps for 720p gaming via OnLive, it would add up to around 200GB per week!

The reality is that average Internet speeds are slowing down, not speeding up, and to get faster speeds ISPs are raising their fees, not lowering them... and to add insult to injury, the current trend is to cap download bandwidth and charge a premium for extra usage.

As you said, this itself will cripple OnLive and other cloud computing services in terms of who can afford to use it... it will also cripple downloading movies and other high bandwidth internet use should ISP service continue to get more and more restrictive and costly.

 

[magburner]

You wait for one bus then two come along at once! Here is another competing service for OnLive: Gaikai - Streaming Worlds. Not as much info on this one, even though it debuted at the same GDC show that OnLive did. Interestingly though, these guys are offering a closed demonstration of the service. 👍

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

You wait for one bus then two come along at once! Here is another competing service for OnLive: Gaikai - Streaming Worlds. Not as much info on this one, even though it debuted at the same GDC show that OnLive did. Interestingly though, these guys are offering a closed demonstration of the service. 👍

Yes, FoolKiller already posted over a week ago in this thread about David Perry's 'forced' announcement regarding plans for his new cloud gaming network, GAIKAI... and as mentioned before there are other buses as well that have been mentioned:

So besides all the competition between PC gaming platforms, standard console platforms, handheld console platforms, with OnLive, Playcast Media, PS Cloud, and other cloud computing networks yet to be revealed, it appears cloud gaming networks will also likely have plenty of competition. 👍

And apparently OTOY was technically the first cloud gaming service to be announced back in January during CES.

So that makes four official ones, and one unofficial one so far:

• GAIKAI
• OnLive
• OTOY
• Playcast Media
• PS Coud?

Which also means unless (which is extremely unlikely) they will all offer the exact same server side hardware specs, then developers would now have at least five additional different hardware platforms to have to develop their games on... in addition to the different console and PC hardware platforms.

So as mentioned before, for those hoping that developers only have a single platform to develop on... this is not good news. Personally, I don't feel that way, and instead I think competition is what empowers consumers, and will also give developers more options in terms of who they want to develop games for that will best showcase what they are capable of doing. 👍

However, considering all that has been discussed, all of these and other cloud computing services are going to be competing for a very small slice of the market pie, especially as we witness average network speeds drop and bandwidth cost rise and even get capped... and that's without even offering 1080p, HD audio, etc.


BTW: I was at Costco yesterday and my earlier estimate regarding the number of 720p and SD TVs was wrong:

Certainly there are differences in HD adoption in different regions, but as an example of how much 1080p is dominating recent North American sales, Costco, which is one of the largest and most successful retailers in this country, and who specialize in generally low-cost bulk goods, if you walk through one of it's store's TV display area, of the 50 or so TV models they sell, less than 20% are 720p TVs, and only a couple are SD TVs.

Which is not all that surprising considering the cost difference between 720p and 1080p of similar models has largely shrunken down to a bare minimum.

So of all the TVs they had, which was about 40. Only 4 were 720p, none of which were larger than 32", and there wasn't a single SD TV to be found. All the rest were 1080p and ranged in sizes from 22" to 71".

Also, their Blu-ray selection is now almost 1/4 the size of the their DVD selection. Last year it was less than 1/10 the size.