I drink and play old Nintendo shit all the time at a buddy's place. That's about the only place where I could see this entering my life. Then again, that would only be useful to us with console-like games that allow some split-screen action. If everything is one person per monitor, then to hell with it! (no, I haven't scoured the articles yet--maybe it says)
For the tech-lazy folks... I suppose this could be decent, depending upon performance(which I'm highly skeptical of). Nothing to do now but wait and see!
They'd have to have the greatest peering and low latency high availability in the history of the internet. Akamai would look like chumps compared to these guys.
I could see it working if they put a set of servers in major ISP colos, but their crap about their awesome technology equating to one millisecond latency for network is pure marketing bullshit. Even if the company I worked for put a bunch of these servers in one of our data centres, you'd still have around 5-10ms latency from the residential side of the network.
Yeah, I think that 1ms number is supposed to be all that's tacked-on from the video encoding(which I still doubt), but you know it will be spun differently than that.
Hell, if something is running at 60 FPS, you could have up to 16ms of lag added right there if your input isn't perfectly synched.
Yeah, I think that 1ms number is supposed to be all that's tacked-on from the video encoding(which I still doubt), but you know it will be spun differently than that.
Hell, if something is running at 60 FPS, you could have up to 16ms of lag added right there if your input isn't perfectly synched.
Definitely. The bad spin has already begun (taken from kotaku article): "What about lag, you say? OnLive's technology "incubator" Rearden Studios claims that its servers will deliver video feeds that have a ping of less than one millisecond. Its patented video compression technique is also advertised as blazing fast, with video compression taking about one millisecond to process."
Note that in that statement they separate out latency and time to compress video. I'm sure that's not something their tech guys are putting forward as a feature, but someone needs to reign in marketing. I looked at the IGN article and didn't see a similar mention, so it's possible that they've just been misunderstood by Kotaku, which is still bad.
None of the articles I've read have indicated that they played it on anything other than a machine that was plugged directly into the same physical LAN as the Onlive demo server.
I find it interesting that IGN and Kotaku have differing information on the Brag Clips, which'd indicate that Onlive didn't even give them a solid press pack on the features.
I find it interesting that IGN and Kotaku have differing information on the Brag Clips, which'd indicate that Onlive didn't even give them a solid press pack on the features.
The video in the OP and this one talks about it a bit. It sounds like a neat feature.
It appears that they're more than just a flashy new startup. They had a h.323 netmeeting-like software in the 90s that apparently was big enough to get demoed by Gates at a Microsoft developer conference. Their head of engineering went on to be the current VP of Engineering at Cisco, so there's some actual talent and history behind this company.
So if the resolution scales with your connection I guess the average Australian connection would make it come in at around... 128*128.
Hah, you're dreaming if you think this is ever going to come to Australia.
Edit 2: It turns out the guy in the video that's going around is the guy who developed WebTV. The guy has a pretty big "put computer stuff through my TV" thing going on.
I'm very skeptical of this being viable with current residential connections, but even if it doesn't work now it's still something worth getting extremely excited about: if not now, someday, we will be able to say "screw that" to paying through the ass to keeping up with hardware requirements. Also, developers not having to worry about the limitations of what their customers own should lead to...good things. And far less compatibility bullshit.
Darlan on
0
DietarySupplementStill not approved by the FDADublin, OHRegistered Userregular
Oh btw, here's the 2nd part of the interview. Its a genuinely interesting idea but I know for a fact that it will not be as good as they make it sound. First off, we don't know how much it costs, how reliable it is/will be. And what if the service flops in like 2 years... what happens to all the games we bought?
Another hurdle here, come to think of it, is that a ton of companies are going to want to offer their own version of this kind of service (if it works), with their own fees, and, of course, with their own exclusives. No way you're going to be playing ICO 3 and Gears of War 3 and Mario Galaxy 2, or whatever the competing companies' equivalents will be, on the same service and system.
Bandwidth isn't the issue at all, it's been done with StreamMyGame for some time now. People are streaming Crysis/FC2/FO3/etc to their EeePCs. :P
It's the latency, and while regular network lag in games can be compensated for and adjusted, input lag is much more noticeable. It would have to be kept under 20ms round-trip at absolute most. I think that's a pipe dream right now.
PeregrineFalcon on
Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
From Engadget's news post, it sounded like you wouldn't be paying retail for each game, like the Steam model, but it would be a monthly service like GameTap or something. So if a game is glitchy, no worries, you can play a different game while they fix it up.
It looks pretty interesting, and I will be keeping my eye on it as I haven't played a PC game in probably 3 years since my graphics card took a nosedive on me and I haven't upgraded my computer since then.
From Engadget's news post, it sounded like you wouldn't be paying retail for each game, like the Steam model, but it would be a monthly service like GameTap or something. So if a game is glitchy, no worries, you can play a different game while they fix it up.
It looks pretty interesting, and I will be keeping my eye on it as I haven't played a PC game in probably 3 years since my graphics card took a nosedive on me and I haven't upgraded my computer since then.
But from the video it shows people choosing a credit card and buying a game before playing it.
Ah, looks like Engadget was probably thinking of the small monthly fee to have access to the system. But they do mention that you can buy a game or rent it for differing periods of time. And free demos, which is cool.
That's a good thought. I know when I played WoW on my laptop I had turned off a few options to get it to run smoothly and it wasn't the prettiest it could have been. To see it looking much nicer could be a good incentive for those who haven't updated their computers yet because it at least runs on what they have.
That's a good thought. I know when I played WoW on my laptop I had turned off a few options to get it to run smoothly and it wasn't the prettiest it could have been. To see it looking much nicer could be a good incentive for those who haven't updated their computers yet because it at least runs on what they have.
Well an added business idea would be to work out deals with internet cafe's in developing countries, in theory it would be cheaper to have all the 3d hardware server side.
The main problem as far as WoW is concerned is that the requirements are just soooo low. Maybe WoW II would be a more ideal test case. They could bump up the graphics and yet not leave so many computers (especially laptops which are a bigger and bigger part of the market) out in the cold.
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Bandwidth isn't the issue at all, it's been done with StreamMyGame for some time now. People are streaming Crysis/FC2/FO3/etc to their EeePCs. :P
It's the latency, and while regular network lag in games can be compensated for and adjusted, input lag is much more noticeable. It would have to be kept under 20ms round-trip at absolute most. I think that's a pipe dream right now.
Games would have to be designed from the ground up to be run on a server to optimize for latency. Current games assume that the input is local, but that could easily be changed. Programmers would code the game logic the same way they code game servers for multiplayer games, but instead of just sending player/world update info, they simply send the video stream. It could be done this way, with very little latency as long as there are no network hiccups.
On the other hand, I am skeptical of games being hacked to run on this system, because the extra networking layer potentially introduces more latency than already exists.
Of course, "casual" games that are not twitch-dependent are best suited for this environment. Think of all the turn-based games that don't depend on exact timing for user enjoyment. This would absolutely rock for everyone concerned.
Personally, I think they should go with a flat-fee license to lease games instead of "buying" them. My favorite service is Rhapsody because I listen to all the music I want (including portable player) for $15/mo. If you could pay like $25/mo for any game you wanted to play, that would be a winning scenario for end users as well. Royalties could be doled out based on an algorithm that checks games "installed" and time played, etc., such that the most popular games get the biggest slice of the licensing fee pie. I know of at least one company in the music industry that already follows this revenue model and everyone involved enjoys the extra revenue this generates while keeping the customers happy.
Just an fyi, the Zune Pass is better than Rhapsody. Same deal, $15 for all the songs you want but with a bigger library, and you get to keep 10 songs every month.
I was talking about this on another forum, and I felt that this service would really really hurt the modding community if it takes off.
Which makes me dislike it right out of the box.
To be honest, modding has died down a lot. It isn't UT or HL1 anymore. HL2 had barely any modifications. What we have instead is a boom in indie gaming.
I was talking about this on another forum, and I felt that this service would really really hurt the modding community if it takes off.
Which makes me dislike it right out of the box.
To be honest, modding has died down a lot. It isn't UT or HL1 anymore. HL2 had barely any modifications. What we have instead is a boom in indie gaming.
Nuuuuuude skins. Some of us prefer to play as Nomad with his dingle dangling out in the fresh jungle breeze.
If this works as advertised, this could be a much-needed shot in the arm for big-budget, non-casual, non-MMO PC gaming. The main reason this branch of PC gaming has withered away is because most computers aren't powerful enough to play them, and most buyers think upgrading isn't worth the trouble (especially since consoles are an easy alternative). If these games are actually playable on lower-end computers, suddenly the tech barrier isn't there anymore. This could revolutionize the industry.
But only if it works as advertised on your average computer.
It's very ambitious but it is the real deal, this is no Phantom. They've been working on it for seven years and they have the backing of EA, Ubisoft, etc. They're apparently planning to eventually work with cable companies to incorporate it directly like cable TV. It can be done, and the more we improve our infrastructure the more viable it becomes.
Posts
For the tech-lazy folks... I suppose this could be decent, depending upon performance(which I'm highly skeptical of). Nothing to do now but wait and see!
I could see it working if they put a set of servers in major ISP colos, but their crap about their awesome technology equating to one millisecond latency for network is pure marketing bullshit. Even if the company I worked for put a bunch of these servers in one of our data centres, you'd still have around 5-10ms latency from the residential side of the network.
Hell, if something is running at 60 FPS, you could have up to 16ms of lag added right there if your input isn't perfectly synched.
Edit: Oh it looks like they're adjusting the games themselves. I guess that means no mods, though!
Definitely. The bad spin has already begun (taken from kotaku article): "What about lag, you say? OnLive's technology "incubator" Rearden Studios claims that its servers will deliver video feeds that have a ping of less than one millisecond. Its patented video compression technique is also advertised as blazing fast, with video compression taking about one millisecond to process."
Note that in that statement they separate out latency and time to compress video. I'm sure that's not something their tech guys are putting forward as a feature, but someone needs to reign in marketing. I looked at the IGN article and didn't see a similar mention, so it's possible that they've just been misunderstood by Kotaku, which is still bad.
None of the articles I've read have indicated that they played it on anything other than a machine that was plugged directly into the same physical LAN as the Onlive demo server.
I find it interesting that IGN and Kotaku have differing information on the Brag Clips, which'd indicate that Onlive didn't even give them a solid press pack on the features.
The video in the OP and this one talks about it a bit. It sounds like a neat feature.
2007 http://venturebeat.com/2007/10/31/onlive-another-data-and-networking-storage-startup-raises-165m/
1996 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1996_Feb_12/ai_17961375
It appears that they're more than just a flashy new startup. They had a h.323 netmeeting-like software in the 90s that apparently was big enough to get demoed by Gates at a Microsoft developer conference. Their head of engineering went on to be the current VP of Engineering at Cisco, so there's some actual talent and history behind this company.
Edit:
Hah, you're dreaming if you think this is ever going to come to Australia.
Edit 2: It turns out the guy in the video that's going around is the guy who developed WebTV. The guy has a pretty big "put computer stuff through my TV" thing going on.
GM: Rusty Chains (DH Ongoing)
Where's Ted Dziuba when we need him?
Excuse me, I'm going to go play Crysis on my Wii.
I was just about to make one. I saw this early last night when they uploaded both parts of the interview. I tweeted Tycho and he tweeted back.
http://twitter.com/TychoBrahe
Oh btw, here's the 2nd part of the interview. Its a genuinely interesting idea but I know for a fact that it will not be as good as they make it sound. First off, we don't know how much it costs, how reliable it is/will be. And what if the service flops in like 2 years... what happens to all the games we bought?
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/47081.html
I see that you're saying that there's no web content, but there is a website with a countdown.
Back to the console problem.
Not at the time that I posted that.
For a while it was like "Huh, nothing. No main website already up or anything... probably be up tomorrow."
And here we are. ;3
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
It looks pretty interesting, and I will be keeping my eye on it as I haven't played a PC game in probably 3 years since my graphics card took a nosedive on me and I haven't upgraded my computer since then.
But from the video it shows people choosing a credit card and buying a game before playing it.
Latency kills fun, and even a small input delay is very noticeable when playing most video games.
Well on the plus side, now when someone whines "LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAG" in a shooter, they may actually have a legitimate excuse.
Seems to me the obvious test case of this idea would be WoW.
Really if it wouldn't work for WoW then I don't see it working at all.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Well an added business idea would be to work out deals with internet cafe's in developing countries, in theory it would be cheaper to have all the 3d hardware server side.
The main problem as far as WoW is concerned is that the requirements are just soooo low. Maybe WoW II would be a more ideal test case. They could bump up the graphics and yet not leave so many computers (especially laptops which are a bigger and bigger part of the market) out in the cold.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Games would have to be designed from the ground up to be run on a server to optimize for latency. Current games assume that the input is local, but that could easily be changed. Programmers would code the game logic the same way they code game servers for multiplayer games, but instead of just sending player/world update info, they simply send the video stream. It could be done this way, with very little latency as long as there are no network hiccups.
On the other hand, I am skeptical of games being hacked to run on this system, because the extra networking layer potentially introduces more latency than already exists.
Of course, "casual" games that are not twitch-dependent are best suited for this environment. Think of all the turn-based games that don't depend on exact timing for user enjoyment. This would absolutely rock for everyone concerned.
Personally, I think they should go with a flat-fee license to lease games instead of "buying" them. My favorite service is Rhapsody because I listen to all the music I want (including portable player) for $15/mo. If you could pay like $25/mo for any game you wanted to play, that would be a winning scenario for end users as well. Royalties could be doled out based on an algorithm that checks games "installed" and time played, etc., such that the most popular games get the biggest slice of the licensing fee pie. I know of at least one company in the music industry that already follows this revenue model and everyone involved enjoys the extra revenue this generates while keeping the customers happy.
Which makes me dislike it right out of the box.
To be honest, modding has died down a lot. It isn't UT or HL1 anymore. HL2 had barely any modifications. What we have instead is a boom in indie gaming.
Nuuuuuude skins. Some of us prefer to play as Nomad with his dingle dangling out in the fresh jungle breeze.
But only if it works as advertised on your average computer.