OnLive 48 Mins Video Demonstration

[Pikarya]

http://i50.tinypic.com/51vf3b.jpg

The founder and CEO of OnLive, Steve Perlman. Shows a demonstration on how to play Crysis on iPhone, Mac, & console. Also talks about the features and how this works to at Columbia University in New York City.

http://www.viddler.com/explore/gamer.../160/1575.631/

A lot of interesting tidbits throughout.

[Kaisha]

"Games that run off the CPU, like World of Goo, why use the GPU?"

1) Game doesn't run as smooth
2) Can't virtualize additional shit if it's hogging all the CPU
3) Looks like shit compared to rendered via GPU

This guy really need to do more research and presentation prep, particularly with the way he's skipping through parts of his little slideshow there.

Also, the whole leasing server idea gives me the impression the service will be like Left4Dead, where it's a gamble as to whether you connect to a decent server or not, and whether or not it won't drop on your midgame, or is able to handle what you want it to run.

And this is all ignoring the still glaring issue of latency problems with any realtime game out there.


Like the last thread, I still don't see something like this working in any location other than Japan or Sweden, since they have the network speeds to keep up with the typical gaming demands. It's an interesting concept, but our technology isn't up to speed yet to make it a profitable reality.

Also, running this kind of service over 3G on an iPhone would be suicide. I've heard reports of 3G ping-rates being around 300-500ms. Dunno about you, but half-second delays on all my actions would be lame.

[Maguspk]

I can't wait for this to go live, it's such a great idea.

Kaisha you can't just take what he says out of context, his audience was being told about the economics of the situation. The consideration of running something like World of Goo without high use of GPU was to give an example of where you can save costs on non-essential components. Just a few moments earlier he was discussing the realities of data centers and why reducing the power needed to run them is an economically sound idea.

As always though, there will be the militant gamer who refuses to acknowledge this being a potentially successful idea for the mainstream audience. While you may not be able to frag on your iPhone's 3G connection (really? come on now), the ramifications are that gaming would be accessible to a larger audience; this audience being those who may not be able to afford, or keep up with, the ever increasing costs of upgrading your desktop or video game entertainment systems.

Also, opinion of yours or not, they've already garnered the favor of several video game publishers to allow them access to the games for use in this strategy. So despite how unsuccessful an idea you think it will be, it's already proving you wrong.

[Jefe]

For video games, eh, I don't see it working. It's a great idea though, for movies or tv content.

[Maguspk]

Why not for gaming? The old latency argument? The lag won't be more than ~80 ms, they have specialized hardware for encoding the video so that the compression itself takes less than a millisecond and is back down the pipe to you. That literally leaves you with a normal ping of simply connecting a remote server which is up to 1000 miles away (most client-server game models are significantly under this distance away). Since they've already said they will have servers set up throughout the US (east/west coasts), you won't be seeing more than a 100 ms ping on anything you do. That also isn't even accounting for the fact that they will take measures to fix any inherent errors with lost information during this loop each frame.

[Kaisha]

80ms ping? Maybe on a good connection, since you still have to send your input out, then wait for a response based on that. The type of games the service will need to live off of mainly will be ones not based on precise controls. Crap like RTS or turn-based systems would work great though, if they find a means of programming it so the mouse-cursor is hidden in the video feed so you can rely on your system's own to ensure you're clicking in the proper locations.
(without the mouse cursor lagging behind)

For video games, eh, I don't see it working. It's a great idea though, for movies or tv content.

Hence Netflix & Hulu. The presentation brought that point up in the sense that movies, music, etc, are linear content wise and you could just jump in and stream at any rate, where-as gaming, if run client-side, needs to download all this base content first for it to even begin to load something remotely playable, which is hardly preferable if you were to jump from game to game on such a service.

There is one site though that does offer a monthly subscription fee to play hundreds of games, but they're all stuff typically in under the 200mb limit, and it's all executed client-side, just can't remember the name of it for the life of me though. I remember it being made fairly well known when they decided to let people play Psyconauts on it.
(must have been fun downloading that one though, 2gb some ;/ )

this audience being those who may not be able to afford, or keep up with, the ever increasing costs of upgrading your desktop or video game entertainment systems.

Hope they can afford a high-end connection with unlimited bandwidth then if they want streamed graphics better looking than 640x480. Unfortunately where I live that would run me upwards of $100 a month, hopefully their intended audiences are living more local to the server farms, and have access to better options.

[Maguspk]

80ms ping is the highest it will be on average. There is no 'good/bad' connection, if you have internet you will be able to use it. I don't know where you're randomly coming up with things like 'only good for RTS games'. First of all, RTS games require very precise controls and lag most certainly plagues them just as much as any other game. However, the point is moot because you're arguing it's going to be unplayable when all the evidence, their reports and demonstrations, say otherwise. You can insist you're correct until the cows come home, but the fact remains that nearly every major publisher is on board with them (excepting Activision) because they understand this is going to be a good service, not only for the gaming community but also for the publishers as they will get a more direct return on their product.

[Freeko]

The beta of this is hit or miss although it could be my shitty net.


It will take up all your bandwidth meaning if you have other people who use the net in your place it will kill your game. As soon as something else starts to use the net, OnLive will give you a connection error and boot you from the service.

Current games in the beta are Burnout Paradise, Prince of Persia, Frontlines, Crysis, World of Goo, Mass Effect. All have 30 minute time limits for you to try. I had problems with Crysis because piece of crap would ask me for a CD Key each time ( not sure if it was patched as of friday).


When things go right you do enjoy the games, I have a shitty speed (6mbps) which is the minimum they say would work, so the games look kinda crappy. Graphics aside the games load fast and the input times are the same as if the game was run off your pc. Example would be when I'm playing Burnout there is no lag or delay even when the cars are going fast and you need to turn etc.


OnLive is good so far I hope they fix some of the problems with the connection problems. The only other question I would ask is how much would the games be to rent / buy.

[Maguspk]

They mentioned they are going to let the publishers decide the costs, so I imagine maybe around the same price they go for in retail but maybe a little discount like say 5-10 dollars. However, due to the unique nature of this service it wouldn't surprise be if publishers offered sub-subscriptions to allow you to play all their games, or maybe packs of games for the price of a single game. There is probably going to be some sort of deal but really I don't think anyone knows for sure what it'll be yet.

[Jefe]

Why not for gaming? (...)

Simple, lack of content. From the parters at the moment, tell me which of them have products you are excited about; Burnout Paradise that came out like 2 years ago? Wouldn't you think it's vital for a new platform to have established franchises and of course brand new IP's early in its infancy? The problem w/ the former is that such franchises are already available for the current systems. Second, which developers are going to risk developing new IP's for this? It'd seem far more feasible to do so for the already established market, wouldn't you agree? Or maybe they'll go multi plat? Will this be better than the alternatives? It damn better be.

Let's be realistic, but the graphics look like crap. They can boast all they want about their compression methods, but to compare (dunno if they are, vid is too long for me) this graphics to a computer, or a PS3 is laughable.

Although there are places like Netflix or what have you, I see this working more for movies and tv shows. Last, I'll keep my physical copy.

[Darus Grey]

Why not for gaming? The old latency argument? The lag won't be more than ~80 ms

You realize that fighting game players and FPS players are constantly annoyed in *non-online scenarios* over 2-20ms of input lag cause by things like their actual displays?

It's hardly "that old argument" it's a big fucking deal. If you've ever played something with 80+ms of input lag you'd know, it's instantly noticeable.

I mean...seriously...you actually believe 80ms is the max? do you even use the internet? connections even 10 miles away are highly inconsistent.

The big issue, is that to a certain degree *ping time is a function of physics*, when a signal is running over thousands to tens(to hundreds worldwide) of miles of cable, speed of light(divided by 4 through copper, ohms, etc) actually becomes an issue. The internet isn't a "super-highway", it's a huge tangled fucking spider web where 99% of your information is using a "less than optimal" route.

All these tests have been conducted in fully optimal scenarios where their servers were a few dozen miles away and they planned out specific routes to them to maximize efficiency.

That is not a realistic use scenario, you've also got to account for the fact that most people are morons and if they didn't normally play these types of games, might think it feels "normal".

Essentially people who have a clue know this shit is impossible, which is why people who say stuff like you make us groan, there's no amount of magic technology that can overcome simple physics.

[Maguspk]

You realize that fighting game players and FPS players are constantly annoyed in *non-online scenarios* over 2-20ms of input lag cause by things like their actual displays?

It's hardly "that old argument" it's a big fucking deal. If you've ever played something with 80+ms of input lag you'd know, it's instantly noticeable.

I mean...seriously...you actually believe 80ms is the max? do you even use the internet? connections even 10 miles away are highly inconsistent.

The big issue, is that to a certain degree *ping time is a function of physics*, when a signal is running over thousands to tens(to hundreds worldwide) of miles of cable, speed of light(divided by 4 through copper, ohms, etc) actually becomes an issue. The internet isn't a "super-highway", it's a huge tangled fucking spider web where 99% of your information is using a "less than optimal" route.

All these tests have been conducted in fully optimal scenarios where their servers were a few dozen miles away and they planned out specific routes to them to maximize efficiency.

That is not a realistic use scenario, you've also got to account for the fact that most people are morons and if they didn't normally play these types of games, might think it feels "normal".

Essentially people who have a clue know this shit is impossible, which is why people who say stuff like you make us groan, there's no amount of magic technology that can overcome simple physics.

Again with the talk about impossibilities without any sort of evidence, it's the same argument you've read before that you're simply regurgitating because you think it's correct. Let me reiterate, they've done demonstrations more than a 'few dozen miles' away. Also, 80ms ping isn't a big deal, and like I've said earlier this is meant to act as a substitute or alternative for people who aren't interested in buying and/or upgrading a PC and/or console.

you've also got to account for the fact that most people are morons and if they didn't normally play these types of games, might think it feels "normal".

Uhm, exactly? You've taken the 'militant gamer' approach I've already addressed earlier, read. The average kid who wants to play a game doesn't care if there is 80ms of ping, or even 150ms of ping. Also, believe it or not, the average person can't even detect that amount of ping. Sure, seasoned gamers might not want to use this method of sending everything over the internet, but for a large majority this is definitely a realistic possible alternative. Also, since you didn't bother to do any research, they know that connection routes can become long quickly even to nearby places which is why they have also partnered with every major internet provider and allocated bandwidth and a server at major locations, so that you aren't routed abnormally and get a long route, you instead get a more direct, 'as the crow flies' route. If you look around they really have addressed all these 'impossible to fix' problems you keep spouting as gospel simply because some forum nerd wrote it once and you believed it.

I love reading these old and tired arguments that nobody has even thought over themselves being repeated over and over. It's so funny how even on the internet people will so quickly become sheep and not stray from the norm; 'lag lag lag! its gonna sux lolz! u cant do this lol!' I also find it hilarious that you say I have 'no idea' when I actually make my living in this field, I do have more than 'an idea'. Just read a few posts up, the guy who is in the actual beta tests said himself that the lag isn't an issue, in fact the issue seems to be more server side stuff like, they didn't set the game up properly, or it's not running on a proper machine, or his connection isn't up to par.

@Meteora, most big game publishers are already partnered with OnLive, once it's live they will be getting most, if not all, of the games they release. There is monetary motivation for them to do so. Also, I can't say anything about the graphics but it sounds like even with a subpar connection like the above person confirmed the graphics aren't really terrible just less than optimal. With the proper connection I'm sure the graphics wouldn't be a significant issue either. And again, even if graphics aren't up to the exact standard you can achieve with a console/PC you have to remember this is an alternative for console/PC gaming. If you can even get close to the graphics without having to spend the hundreds of dollars to play the game, you can bet a ton of people are going to be in on it.

The most important part of your post Meteora, is the mention of a physical copy. That is a particular issue raised by this method, while lots of providers (Blizzard comes to mind) allow you to obtain a digital copy of the game, there is a less secure feeling with these methods. While they are becoming more normal and mainstream, it is a problem where most people don't feel safe knowing their copy is only a boolean on some server that could easily be lost tomorrow.

[Darus Grey]

Again with the talk about impossibilities without any sort of evidence

Didn't read past this...physics isn't "evidence"? This isn't MAGIC, which you seem to think it is...

[Maguspk]

Didn't read past this...physics isn't "evidence"? This isn't MAGIC, which you seem to think it is...

Right, assuming the route is going to be hundreds of thousands of miles long is a perfectly valid premise despite what they've mentioned to the contrary. Read.

[Cephius]

Militant gamer or not, anything over 100ms ping is usually deemed unplayable by online gamers (most servers will boot you if your ping is consistently that high) and that isn't a small community we're talking about here. To your average kid who wants to play a single player game (hell, that's me, so it's not like i'm biased against it) this is fine, but it will have no place in online gaming until the world's bandwidth infrastructure is much much more advanced.

You can act all you want about how lag isn't a big issue and how people usually use it as an excuse to cover up their poor skills. The fact remains though, is that lag is still a major issue for anyone who is a gamer over the age of 20.

[Zelas]

You realize that fighting game players and FPS players are constantly annoyed in *non-online scenarios* over 2-20ms of input lag cause by things like their actual displays?

i doubt they care about making a perfect system just to cater an extremely marginal part of the gaming population. <80ms is more than playable. Its not like Onlive is trying to replace consoles/PCs completely on day 1. And really if you're playing a FPS or fighter on an iphone, the last thing you'll be complaining about is latency.

[Maguspk]

Militant gamer or not, anything over 100ms ping is usually deemed unplayable by online gamers (most servers will boot you if your ping is consistently that high) and that isn't a small community we're talking about here. To your average kid who wants to play a single player game (hell, that's me, so it's not like i'm biased against it) this is fine, but it will have no place in online gaming until the world's bandwidth infrastructure is much much more advanced.

You can act all you want about how lag isn't a big issue and how people usually use it as an excuse to cover up their poor skills. The fact remains though, is that lag is still a major issue for anyone who is a gamer over the age of 20.

Bandwidth is the only issue you mentioned, most people don't have the connection to support this system. However, latency is definitely not the issue, which is what I was trying to drive home. 80ms is the most you'd probably ever see and even then that's really not something someone can really complain about, that's less than a tenth of a second delay, really small, and that's the maximum. I mean the proof is seriously a few posts up, the guy who is currently in the beta said lag is not the issue, there are other issues which plague this proposed system, but latency isn't one of them. Also, I never said lag wasn't an issue. 80ms ping is not 'lag' it's a small latency that is almost unnoticeable to the average gamer. If you claim to have trouble playing with an 80ms ping well I dunno, that's just nuts. Unless there are packets being lost or something there really isn't a big issue with that sort of ping. I mean the mean ping on UT servers and the like is about 90ms and that's FPS where ping is supposedly the most crucial.

[Darus Grey]

Right, assuming the route is going to be hundreds of thousands of miles long is a perfectly valid premise despite what they've mentioned to the contrary. Read.

I see you've taken the "Don't have a clue but I'll keep talking anyways" approach, did I say that? No, I didn't.

Even a server 100 miles away may have 2000 miles of wire to get to it, not to mention the small amount of time added as it passes each router at every hub. That's about 22ms of ping time just from physical effects alone, before adding each hop to the equation, and before any other factors. Realistically most people having a central onlive server cluster within 100 miles of them is not...well realistic at all, so it only gets worse from there. Since onlive doesn't control ISPs, 100-300ms is going to be the norm for this service.

Seriously dude I'm laughing at you, you don't have a clue what you're talking about and it's clear as daylight. You think the internet is MAGIC.

Oh it's ok though, because THEY SAID IT WILL BE OK. That's your argument? My god man, LOL.

Btw, please keep spouting the "80ms is not noticeable" shit, I'm sure we're all having a laugh at your expense.

I mean the mean ping on UT servers and the like is about 90ms and that's FPS where ping is supposedly the most crucial.

Evidenced by this, since you don't even know the difference between response lag and input lag...

[Cephius]

Bandwidth is the only issue you mentioned, most people don't have the connection to support this system. However, latency is definitely not the issue, which is what I was trying to drive home. 80ms is the most you'd probably ever see and even then that's really not something someone can really complain about, that's less than a tenth of a second delay, really small, and that's the maximum. I mean the proof is seriously a few posts up, the guy who is currently in the beta said lag is not the issue, there are other issues which plague this proposed system, but latency isn't one of them. Also, I never said lag wasn't an issue. 80ms ping is not 'lag' it's a small latency that is almost unnoticeable to the average gamer. If you claim to have trouble playing with an 80ms ping well I dunno, that's just nuts. Unless there are packets being lost or something there really isn't a big issue with that sort of ping. I mean the mean ping on UT servers and the like is about 90ms and that's FPS where ping is supposedly the most crucial.

I understand it's not "lag" in the traditional sense, but it's still detrimental to online gameplay. Like someone said earlier, it's simple physics. You're adding a middleman. If you're playing a single player game this is fine, you're right in that it won't be noticeable. My point is that if you're playing an online game, adding a 80ms input lag on top of the remote computer's normal lag to the host, that would be considered unplayable. I'm not trying to downplay something like this, just saying it may be a bit before it's time in terms of practicability.

[Darus Grey]

I understand it's not "lag" in the traditional sense, but it's still detrimental to online gameplay. Like someone said earlier, it's simple physics. You're adding a middleman. If you're playing a single player game this is fine, you're right in that it won't be noticeable. My point is that if you're playing an online game, adding a 80ms input lag on top of the remote computer's normal lag to the host, that would be considered unplayable. I'm not trying to downplay something like this, just saying it may be a bit before it's time in terms of practicability.

Unfortunately we'd need ultra-high bandwidth wireless to make something like this work, since wireless is 4x the potential speed of wired(you'd have significantly more hops though unless we're talking FM radio signal strength over wide areas though), then we could get theoretical response times in the 5-10ms range, which is the range most people's HDTV sets are in for innate lag, so it'd simply be double the input lag over a normal console as opposed to 20-50x.

Chances are that will never happen and the backbone will remain copper and fiber forever, which as I said, is the real thing that causes plans like these to be unfeasible, at least until we re-do our entire infrastructure to make every hop as "as the crow flies" as possible and reduce number of hops.