OnLive 48 Mins Video Demonstration

**Maguspk** · 2009-12-29 18:19

Originally Posted by Cephius

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.

I can see where that could become an issue; it may turn out that the servers people play on are also the ones which take in their input and feedback the video response so that may not even turn out to be an issue.

The fact is, saying 'this won't work', as a blanket statement, as was done earlier by some rather vocal people, is the wrong viewpoint. On a single player game, this model works fine, there is no argument there, it does. For multiplayer I'm sure they have a solution already or are going to have one, because there is multiplayer and there aren't complaints yet. I won't claim to know exactly how they solve this issue which you have raised, but I don't doubt they haven't come up with a workaround.

Darus Grey, you speak in absolutes as if this is impossible no matter what. The fact of the matter is, this is possible because it's already being done, and nearly done with it's beta phases. Cephius raises a good point with the multiplayer issues and adding onto the smaller ping with the time it takes for your input to then reach the server hosting the game, however, this is the only case where lag is an issue. Otherwise it isn't an issue, whatsoever. So for single player games, this is a valid alternative for most people, and for multiplayer, well maybe the guy who is in the beta can give some actual input.

**Cephius** · 2009-12-29 18:40

Originally Posted by Darus Grey

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.

This is pretty much what I was referring to in my original post in this thread. Is cloud computing feasible for online gaming? Sure, idealistically. It's still a long, long way away. You'd need a theoretical infrastructure that doesn't exist yet.

I'm all for it when being used with single player games, though. It's cheaper than upgrading your computer. I could see it as something that Steam adapts one day.

Originally Posted by Maguspk

I can see where that could become an issue; it may turn out that the servers people play on are also the ones which take in their input and feedback the video response so that may not even turn out to be an issue.

Then you'd have to get every company that hosts online servers to somehow (?) agree to take on the astronomical cost of streaming video back to their users. I don't see it.

**Maguspk** · 2009-12-29 19:56

Originally Posted by Cephius

Then you'd have to get every company that hosts online servers to somehow (?) agree to take on the astronomical cost of streaming video back to their users. I don't see it.

The video is done client-OnLive, the server would still act normally, it's just taking the input from OnLive instead of the user. That would not require them to send video at all.

**Kaisha** · 2009-12-29 20:14

So you'd be adding yet another middleman to the middleman, further increasing latency.

Too much handshaking going on.

**Maguspk** · 2009-12-29 21:35

Originally Posted by Kaisha

So you'd be adding yet another middleman to the middleman, further increasing latency.

Too much handshaking going on.

No, one 'middleman' it's OnLive.

**Reality** · 2010-01-21 20:11

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=859

Looks like it isn't the second version of the PHANTOM after all, it is infact real and does work. PCPerspective has been betatesting it on a few different platforms (TV, Laptop, PC) and discuss performance amongst other things

Now i'm officially excited. Not so much that I think it'll replace my PC and consoles but this is a nice alternative

**Darus Grey** · 2010-01-22 02:32

Not that anyone should be surprised...

The input lag on UT3 was so noticeably bad with the mouse and keyboard that I would call game simply unplayable. I often found myself overshooting the mouse movement by half a screen, moving well past my intended target because the cursor didn't stop when I did. (You'll see this in the video below; I'm not normally THAT bad.)

**Minions** · 2010-01-22 02:57

Originally Posted by Darus Grey

Not that anyone should be surprised...

Just as planned? Not all that surprising, really saw this useful in games that are not timing oriented, with battle systems that wait. Some RPG's for example. Regardless I'll stick with my discounted games.

**Meresgi** · 2010-01-22 04:05

Originally Posted by Reality

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=859

Looks like it isn't the second version of the PHANTOM after all, it is infact real and does work. PCPerspective has been betatesting it on a few different platforms (TV, Laptop, PC) and discuss performance amongst other things

Now i'm officially excited. Not so much that I think it'll replace my PC and consoles but this is a nice alternative

I'm sure there was a Phantom build that actually worked and was tested, after all they had to show investors a little something to steal their money. Most likely it was an Xbox painted white.

**Meresgi** · 2010-01-22 04:08

Originally Posted by Maguspk

No, one 'middleman' it's OnLive.

The video is done client-OnLive, the server would still act normally, it's just taking the input from OnLive instead of the user. That would not require them to send video at all.

Are you referring to OnLive as the server as well in that sentence or as 2 different entities? The way you typed it up is confusing as shit, from what it sounds like you are saying that OnLive will do the video, you would do an input which would go to OnLive, then to the server and then back to you.

**Dezzimal** · 2010-01-22 07:03

Code:

[you]----------------------------[onlive]--------------------------[game server]
        mouseclicks and            game           normal fps game
        keypresses out            running              traffic
        video back to you          here

**Meresgi** · 2010-01-22 07:37

Originally Posted by Dezzimal

Code:

[you]----------------------------[onlive]--------------------------[game server]
        mouseclicks and            game           normal fps game
        keypresses out            running              traffic
        video back to you          here

I would rather just communicate with the game server and run the game on my own computer. Granted it would let you play higher end games w/o coughing up bucks for the hardware, but since I use my computer for video editing and such, the hardware does more then just running games.

**Cephius** · 2010-01-22 12:38

Originally Posted by Dezzimal

Code:

[you]----------------------------[onlive]--------------------------[game server]
        mouseclicks and            game           normal fps game
        keypresses out            running              traffic
        video back to you          here

This is misrepresenting how it works. You make it look like onlive is halving the response time, which couldn't be further from the truth.

It's more like...

Normally:

You -> inputs sent > server or host receives > host issues response > your client displays result

Onlive presents:

You -> inputs sent > onlive receives > issues commands to game client > client communicates with host/server > host issues response > client renders > onlive streams result > you recieve

**Priran** · 2010-01-22 14:26

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/6...8450660106.jpg

**Devolver** · 2010-01-22 14:32

Jesus Christ that's cash. But I'm still hoping this doesn't crash and burn.

**Kerberoz** · 2010-01-22 15:55

I swear I saw this exact same thread on another forum with one guy defending it religiously and everyone else laughing at him.

80ms not noticeable, LOL.

**Pikarya** · 2010-01-22 16:00

imo they really need to be testing this in a country where the technology infrastructure isn't as of shit and spread out like ours is in the states.

I don't understand why they didn't try idea originally in Japan in the first place?

**Meresgi** · 2010-01-22 18:28

Originally Posted by Cephius

This is misrepresenting how it works. You make it look like onlive is halving the response time, which couldn't be further from the truth.

It's more like...

Normally:

You -> inputs sent > server or host receives > host issues response > your client displays result

Onlive presents:

You -> inputs sent > onlive receives > issues commands to game client > client communicates with host/server > host issues response > client renders > onlive streams result > you recieve

Boy oh boy this sounds amazing. 80ms is totally not noticeable at all!

**Maguspk** · 2010-01-23 00:06

People should read the article, it's funny watching sheep.

The guy clearly states he is well outside the recommended bounds for the beta test (i.e. far from the server) yet when he wire sharked his packets there was only a 85ms response lag. That's not bad at all considering he was in a sub-optimal environment. To the average gamer, who is just using OnLive, it's fine, to the people in this thread who think claiming a ping over 80 totally ruins their fragz, yeah it won't be what they choose.

Also find it funny, Kereboz says I defend it religiously, I won't be using this nor do I even have an investment in it's success. I am just offering the counter argument to the oh so predictable, 'but it will lagz' argument that everyone seems to think they are offering up as some amazingly new idea. If anything, the majority is 'bashing' it religiously. Think about that.

**thestalkmore** · 2010-01-23 00:12

People who can't frag with 80ms pings are shitty players.

Not trolling.

Thread: OnLive 48 Mins Video Demonstration

Thread Tools

Latest Threads

Up & Coming Threads

Hottest Threads