Apparently the downstream bandwidth requirement is not quite as big as it would seem
The numbers being thrown around are 1.5 Mbps for SD and 5 Mbps for HD. The connection that I am posting from has a 2.2 Mbps download speed, which is par for the course for broadband in the US as far as I know. My connection at home is about 11 Mbps (I think), and I pay $10/month extra for that speed.
Furthermore:
5 Mbps = 2.2 GB per hour
If I'm not mistaken, Comcast (my ISP) has recently introduced 250 GB/month bandwidth caps in the US. Bandwidth caps in other countries are often more strict. Something like this is never coming to Australia.
So playing for 1 minute takes up 300 megs already?
Yikes.
That's the connection speed they recommend for HDTV game footage
I don't think they'd actually be using all five megabytes of bandwidth every second, but then, I'm not a scientist, nor do I work there, so what the fuck do I know
All I know is what I saw looked pretty impressive, and I'm more than willing to give these guys the benefit of the doubt after having actually seen this shit in action and knowing they must have some talent behind them to get this thing working and attract nine major publishers to their service
Except it isn't vaporware seeing as 9 major publishers have seen it, tested it both in a demo environment and in their own environments and signed up in a major way. Warner has come out backing this.
And regarding your bandwidth arguments; this is exactly the same thing people said about video streaming, and then high def video streaming. The cycle of consumer need, technological advance and commoditization (I probably screwed that word up) will continue to push things like this forward.
Regarding the speed of light argument, the light covers 186.282 miles per millisecond. At 1500 miles that's 8 milliseconds (assuming you have a direct path, so serves as an average taking into account non-direct routing). A roundtrip is then 16 milliseconds. So, to 16 milliseconds add something like half a dozen milliseconds for hop processing on routers, so call it 22 milliseconds round trip. On top of that you add your processing time at your microconsole and at the OnLive servers. At 30 frames a second, a frame is displayed every 33.33 milliseconds. At 60 frames a second, every 16.7 milliseconds.
I really can't tell if your trying to make an argument for it or against it with your latency write up there. Even at 30 fps your getting almost an entire frame of input lag, which is noticeable and your delay estimates are very optimistic. That aside as someone who has worked at ISPs and specializes in networking if this became even remotely popular you would start getting saturated links and packets would be routed further and further away in more roundabout routes, not to mention the QOS would likely start to automatically assign it lower priority.
It's just not a workable system unless they decide to also become an ISP
Megabit. Also, the service doesn't consume 5mbps, it's just the connection type that they use as a measuring stick. The press conference said you'd use maybe 4mbps, because you cannot construct a service like OnLive that operates on the theoretical maximum capacity of another service (your DSL/Cable/Fibre).
A megabit is theoretically equivalent to 125kb a second. So 7.5 megabytes a minute (rounding up). If their compression codec has a throughput of 4mbps for 720p, then per minute you're looking at just a bit over 29 megabytes. An hour is 1.7 gigabytes.
This will never happen in Australia without some kind of bundling/free data deal.
Apparently the downstream bandwidth requirement is not quite as big as it would seem
The numbers being thrown around are 1.5 Mbps for SD and 5 Mbps for HD. The connection that I am posting from has a 2.2 Mbps download speed, which is par for the course for broadband in the US as far as I know. My connection at home is about 11 Mbps (I think), and I pay $10/month extra for that speed.
Furthermore:
5 Mbps = 2.2 GB per hour
If I'm not mistaken, Comcast (my ISP) has recently introduced 250 GB/month bandwidth caps in the US. Bandwidth caps in other countries are often more strict. Something like this is never coming to Australia.
I don't think they'd actually be using all five megabytes of bandwidth every second
You better believe they would. You're going to need a really high bitrate to get decent quality when the video encoding has to be done on-the-fly. There can't be any buffering involved, either.
The 1ms for the video encoding is the most believable aspect of their PR, and I even have a hard time accepting that unless they've developed the greatest video compression algorithms the world has ever seen.
I really can't tell if your trying to make an argument for it or against it with your latency write up there. Even at 30 fps your getting almost an entire frame of input lag, which is noticeable. That aside as someone who has worked at ISPs and specializes in networking if this became even remotely popular you would start getting saturated links and packets would be routed further and further away, not to mention the QOS would likely start to automatically assign it lower priority.
It's just not a workable system unless they decide to also become an ISP
It's noticable, but the question is will most people care? There is no doubt that this is a tradeoff situation; I am not arguing at all that this is the thing that is going to kill off PCs as direct gaming platform.
There have already been a fairly significant number of gaming press who have demoed this. They agree that there is a gameplay difference if you focus on it, but the games remain playable without a "omg this is so crap, I miss all my shots".
I see it as people who are hardcore about their FPS games will stay with their custom built rigs in the same way that they don't buy PCs from Dell. It's people who don't want to outlay all that cash for a PC, or keep up with the hardware changes who are likely to go for this.
devoir on
0
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
Apparently the downstream bandwidth requirement is not quite as big as it would seem
The numbers being thrown around are 1.5 Mbps for SD and 5 Mbps for HD. The connection that I am posting from has a 2.2 Mbps download speed, which is par for the course for broadband in the US as far as I know. My connection at home is about 11 Mbps (I think), and I pay $10/month extra for that speed.
Furthermore:
5 Mbps = 2.2 GB per hour
If I'm not mistaken, Comcast (my ISP) has recently introduced 250 GB/month bandwidth caps in the US. Bandwidth caps in other countries are often more strict. Something like this is never coming to Australia.
Again, they did sort of address that in the presentation
Someone asked about the bandwidth caps put in place by Comcast and such in a Q&A at the end, and they said they had talked with Comcast about it, that their service didn't actually use all that much bandwidth per month so it had never been a problem, and that if there was a problem, they were sure they'd work something out
I don't think they'd actually be using all five megabytes of bandwidth every second
You better believe they would. You're going to need a really high bitrate to get decent quality when the video encoding has to be done on-the-fly. There can't be any buffering involved, either.
As I posted above, that's incorrect. They said as much in the press conference and/or interview articles. Anyone who bases their internet connectivity requirements on the theoretical capacity of a link is stupid.
I'm pondering crunching the numbers on exactly how much compression they have to be getting out of their algorithms. Keep in mind that a number of the key guys in this have been doing video compression for years; Perlman himself is responsible for a number of the Quicktime patents if what I read is to be believed.
devoir on
0
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
edited March 2009
I really do look forward to how this plays out in the beta
Blizzard thought they were prepared for the demand for WoW, and that didn't turn out so well
I really hope they realize how many people are going to want this shit, so they can prepare accordingly
I'm assuming that's what this summer beta is for, but unless it's a very open beta, it still won't adequately prepare them for what's coming
I see it as people who are hardcore about their FPS games will stay with their custom built rigs in the same way that they don't buy PCs from Dell. It's people who don't want to outlay all that cash for a PC, or keep up with the hardware changes who are likely to go for this.
The best ping I get for most of my online activities is around 50ms, so I'll give OnLive the benefit of the doubt and assume that they can match that performance. But even the most casual of gamers would likely be frustrated with 50ms of input lag in anything that's not turn-based.
And the pitch for this service, if I'm not mistaken, is to let low-end users play high-end games, right? I don't think most of the people on low-end machines care about the sort of PC games that are bleeding-edge, and I don't think those interested in the high-end games are actually going to be able to get high-end performance out of this service once all of the limitations of the Internet are taken into account.
I really do look forward to how this plays out in the beta
Blizzard thought they were prepared for the demand for WoW, and that didn't turn out so well
I really hope they realize how many people are going to want this shit, so they can prepare accordingly
I'm assuming that's what this summer beta is for, but unless it's a very open beta, it still won't adequately prepare them for what's coming
Most betas have phases where they incrementally add more people...
Yes, and they're universally never prepared when release actually rolls around
But I'm thinking of MMOs. With a service like this, based around a one megabyte browser plugin, it'll probably be way easier to get lots and lots of people to stress test it
I really do look forward to how this plays out in the beta
Blizzard thought they were prepared for the demand for WoW, and that didn't turn out so well
I really hope they realize how many people are going to want this shit, so they can prepare accordingly
I'm assuming that's what this summer beta is for, but unless it's a very open beta, it still won't adequately prepare them for what's coming
There will be significant queues, guaranteed. Despite their claims of reducing the cost per hardware unit dramatically over what a joeblow pays for a new gaming PC, they will be optimistically cautious about their hardware deployments.
I'm also sure that a lot of people who try it won't subscribe to the service, at least not right away, so there'll be a massive demand glut at the start that will probably taper off.
The best ping I get for most of my online activities is around 50ms, so I'll give OnLive the benefit of the doubt and assume that they can match that performance. But even the most casual of gamers would likely be frustrated with 50ms of input lag in anything that's not turn-based.
That could be true, so you may see the service segment towards games that aren't FPS games.
And the pitch for this service, if I'm not mistaken, is to let low-end users play high-end games, right? I don't think most of the people on low-end machines care about the sort of PC games that are bleeding-edge, and I don't think those interested in the high-end games are actually going to be able to get high-end performance out of this service one all of the limitations of the Internet are taken into account.
Not really, the pitch appears to be multipronged. Community like XBL, videos like vimeo/youtube, game variety like gametap, cloud-based storage for saves, etc like Steam/Google, and ease of use of consoles (no need to buy new hardware every 18 months, keep up with nvidia/ati/intel/amd).
And I'm sure you're partially right; there will be a lot of people who can't play on the high end streams due to internet bottlenecks. But a lot of people miss the point that without services like this (and streaming video before it, and MP3 downloading before that) everyone would still be using dialup. ISPs invest in new infrastructure when demand is placed on their networks. Demand is placed on their networks when new, consumer-attractive services come to market. This, I think, is one of those.
But I'm thinking of MMOs. With a service like this, based around a one megabyte browser plugin, it'll probably be way easier to get lots and lots of people to stress test it
Oh god. I don't care if you American bastards get huge data limits that make the Australian collective e-peen cry; if MMOs move to a structure like this that removes the need to download multi-gig patches and clients, everyone will give it a shot.
Yep, not interested. If this becomes the new norm, digital distribution or streaming of games, then I might just stop playing new games and stick to what I already have.... or I'll be finding a new hobby.
BakerIsBored on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
Oh god. I don't care if you American bastards get huge data limits that make the Australian collective e-peen cry; if MMOs move to a structure like this that removes the need to download multi-gig patches and clients, everyone will give it a shot.
Exactly! This shit is going to change everything, even if it doesn't work quite as well as advertised
It's gonna be fucking insane for the next few years, everyone's gonna be fuckin' around with this technology and making it work better and work faster and do more for less money. It's an exciting time, my friends
Hell, I don't even think the company is in danger of failing if not so many people use their service, since their subsidiary developed that facial modeling technology used in several very successful major motion pictures
Yep, not interested. If this becomes the new norm, digital distribution or streaming of games, then I might just stop playing new games and stick to what I already have.... or I'll be finding a new hobby.
Bullshit
You'll get with the times, just like everybody else
It's like when everyone was all "no sir I ain't buyin' all my movies all over again on these new fangled dee vee dees, I'll just stick to the VHS tapes I already got"
Change is inevitable, especially when you're talking about technology
Yep, not interested. If this becomes the new norm, digital distribution or streaming of games, then I might just stop playing new games and stick to what I already have.... or I'll be finding a new hobby.
Bullshit
You'll get with the times, just like everybody else
It's like when everyone was all "no sir I ain't buyin' all my movies all over again on these new fangled dee vee dees, I'll just stick to the VHS tapes I already got"
Change is inevitable, especially when you're talking about technology
Meh.
Even if the service worked as advertised (and it probably will at some point in the future), I still wouldn't pay for it if I didn't have to.
I had the Sega Channel back in the day, and it was the coolest motherfucking thing in the world... until the service was cancelled and the games no longer accessible. Ever since, I've gone for physical media over other options whenever possible.
I know 100% digital distribution and content streaming services are likely to be the future, but I'm not jumping on board any sooner than I have to.
Yep, not interested. If this becomes the new norm, digital distribution or streaming of games, then I might just stop playing new games and stick to what I already have.... or I'll be finding a new hobby.
Bullshit
You'll get with the times, just like everybody else
It's like when everyone was all "no sir I ain't buyin' all my movies all over again on these new fangled dee vee dees, I'll just stick to the VHS tapes I already got"
Change is inevitable, especially when you're talking about technology
No. I'm not a fan of streaming my games from their servers. I'm not a fan of Steam. I'm not a fan of DLC. I'm not a fan of subscriptions. Money can be tight at times, and internet isn't always available for me. Like I said. I'll play what I already have (I still have my NES, SNES, N64, DC, GC, PS2, PS3) .. I don’t plan on getting rid of them and like having hard copies of my games. I don't buy games with bullshit ass DRM's (tis why I'm giving up on PC gaming).
I'm sure there are enough people out there like 'me' where companies still want to take my money. If not, like I said, I'll find a new hobby or keep playing what I have. Fuck all this shit in the ass :P Pardon my french.
I will buy a box for most of the TVs and PCs that I own. Not only that but I will be getting some for my nieces, nephews and young cousins whose parents can't afford newer systems+games.
And the pitch for this service, if I'm not mistaken, is to let low-end users play high-end games, right? I don't think most of the people on low-end machines care about the sort of PC games that are bleeding-edge, and I don't think those interested in the high-end games are actually going to be able to get high-end performance out of this service once all of the limitations of the Internet are taken into account.
I would say most low-end users are low-end user simply because they don't want to spend $Texas to get a high-end computer. One of the main barriers to PC gaming is the fact that specs keep increasing and upgrading consistently is pretty much a necessity. Having to dump $1000 or so every couple of years is a tough pill to swallow for a lot of folk, even those who like PC gaming.
I mean think about all the threads in this forum for some new PC game coming out. You'll very frequently see something like "Holy Crap, time to upgrade my PC" or "Oh man, that game is never going to run on my comp". I've never seen someone say "That game looks too pretty for me. I'm a low-end gamer so I'm not interested."
There's definitely a huge market out there for something like this. Think about how many people own a computer. That's their market.
I'm going to remain skeptical until I see this thing working and delivering on its promises, but how can you people not be excited by the possibilities? :P
I'm going to remain skeptical until I see this thing working and delivering on its promises, but how can you people not be excited by the possibilities? :P
Answered this in my last post: I don't like content subscription services or digital distribution, period. I like to own my games, and I've never felt as if I've had to keep up with cutting-edge tech anyway.
There's definitely a huge market out there for something like this. Think about how many people own a computer/console/television. That's their market.
I'm going to remain skeptical until I see this thing working and delivering on its promises, but how can you people not be excited by the possibilities? :P
I'm going to remain skeptical until I see this thing working and delivering on its promises, but how can you people not be excited by the possibilities? :P
Answered this in my last post: I don't like content subscription services or digital distribution, period. I like to own my games, and I've never felt as if I've had to keep up with cutting-edge tech anyway.
This. But.. if others find a purpose for it, good for them.
But I'm thinking of MMOs. With a service like this, based around a one megabyte browser plugin, it'll probably be way easier to get lots and lots of people to stress test it
Oh god. I don't care if you American bastards get huge data limits that make the Australian collective e-peen cry; if MMOs move to a structure like this that removes the need to download multi-gig patches and clients, everyone will give it a shot.
Just don't bother trying to install mods, user interfaces, or anything like that.
Oh, also, don't even bother trying to play hot new release games for a while after they come out as the service crashes from the huge influx of people all trying to play at once.
Also, won't it be fun paying Monthly fees TWICE a month for an MMO? Weeeee!
I wonder what happens when the remote machine you're playing off of BSODs or hangs, or if a file gets corrupted and ruins your save.
The one thing I love about PC gaming is how dynamic it is and how if I have a problem with ANYTHING I have the whole internet out there to help me solve the problem. With this, solutions are out of my hands, I have to wait for someone else to fix my problem, oh and I'll probably be put in a queue to have my problem looked at.
I'm interested to see their pricing structure.
If I'm paying a monthly fee for the service, AND I have to pay a one time fee per game, and I stop my subscription to the services will they send me a physical copy of the game I bought and can no longer play?
Maybe it's because I've already got a great PC, but I just don't see any upside to this, all I see are a lot of hurdles, downsides and other potential problems/limitations.
Unlike a standard MMO, how is the system going to crash when you have a huge influx of people? Unless they've been phenomenally retarded and gone to significant effort to realise that stupidity against all logic, it would be impossible for more than the capacity of the system to actually be online. You'll get queued, simply because there aren't enough blades (or whatever) available.
And yes, it's entirely because you're sitting in the section of the market that has the money, time, interest and knowledge to have a high end PC and maintain it.
Unlike a standard MMO, how is the system going to crash when you have a huge influx of people? Unless they've been phenomenally retarded and gone to significant effort to realise that stupidity against all logic, it would be impossible for more than the capacity of the system to actually be online. You'll get queued, simply because there aren't enough blades (or whatever) available.
And yes, it's entirely because you're sitting in the section of the market that has the money, time, interest and knowledge to have a high end PC and maintain it.
There's still going to be servers sending out all that data, having a lot of people trying to log in to play at the same time would slow that down in the same way that a lot of people logging onto an MMO server at the same time slow that down. Unless they actually have a single high end PC devoted per person, but even that's questionable because you're going to have to go through a service portal to log into that PC, and that service portal that you're going to be connected to the whole time that's streaming stuff to you is going to slow down with a lot of simultaneous connections.
But you bring up another issue, queuing to play. How much is that going to suck if you just bought a new game over the service and have to wait an hour to play it.
I also don't really see the market that this is trying to cater to. The market that for some reason has a great internet connection, no concern over bandwidth caps, little or no console gaming alternatives, and for some reason a ghetto PC and has the money to spend on a monthly service for a game that could end up costing more than the game would cost to buy in a brick and mortar?
And yes, it's entirely because you're sitting in the section of the market that has the money, time, interest and knowledge to have a high end PC and maintain it.
I haven't had any interest in PC gaming since SimCity 2000 and I still see way more problems than opportunity in this.
Ah man..this would be a huge relief to me. I am worn out by trying to get games to work on my computer all the time...dealing with crappy drivers and operating systems. Even if it does have a problem and fixing it is out of my hands....well that sounds lovely. I hate having to fix problems with my own machine or games...having someone else do it...who is very motivated to do it quickly...would be a godsend.
The truth is that PC gaming is on the decline...as time passes the machines out their trying to play games vary more and more, putting a lot of pressure on developers to produce games that work on a lot of different computers. Most genres have been pushed primarily onto consoles now, with a few difficult conversions still attempting a move (RTS games). A service like this could breathe new life into PC games.
And while I have grown up with games, and I would like to be a grown-up with games...my life gets more complicated by the day. At 23 now I am both working and in school and it would be nice to not have to worry about going to the store to pick up the new game, getting a new GPU, or sending in my RROD xbox. Whatever people can do to streamline gaming as a hobby would be great for keeping it a part of my life.
I try to play games online with my buddies now and while one of us can get it working sometimes the others cant run it on their machines without searching forums for answers or waiting for game updates and patches. Another issue we run into often is router and port conflictions, on Xbox PC and PS3. It is always a battle trying to play together...but if we all know that we can connect to this service than we don't have to worry because the service will be connecting to everybody else, or connecting us to each other at least. That would save me a lot of headaches.
I am obviously all for this service and I hope it is immensely succesful and becomes a staple of the gaming industry. I doubt it's success will have any kind of real negative impact on those of you who want to stick with your big gaming rigs.
Ah man..this would be a huge relief to me. I am worn out by trying to get games to work on my computer all the time...dealing with crappy drivers and operating systems. Even if it does have a problem and fixing it is out of my hands....well that sounds lovely. I hate having to fix problems with my own machine or games...having someone else do it...who is very motivated to do it quickly...would be a godsend.
It's conjecture on my part, but I think you'll end up having very long waits for problems to get fixed. Have you ever submitted a ticket in an MMO? Sometimes they take days to get answered. It might take less time here, but frankly, 10 minutes is too long for me, I'd hate having to sit in a queue to get my problem even looked at, meanwhile, you're still paying for the service.
The truth is that PC gaming is on the decline...as time passes the machines out their trying to play games vary more and more, putting a lot of pressure on developers to produce games that work on a lot of different computers. Most genres have been pushed primarily onto consoles now, with a few difficult conversions still attempting a move (RTS games). A service like this could breathe new life into PC games.
This is still going to be a problem even with this service. Companies are still going to have to make their games work on different types of systems, except in this case you probably will have to wait (possibly a long long time) for official fixes to come out. If a game gets released that doesn't work right on the types of PCs the OnLive service is using, you're going to be waiting out for them to fix it, but you'll still be paying for the service.
Also, people have been saying PC gaming's on the decline for like a decade now.
Rant warning:
I guess where you and I differ is how you don't want to deal with problems that arise with PC gaming, whereas I like that I can deal with the problems myself. I don't have to wait for some official patch or fix to get my stuff working. Usually there's some unofficial fix or workaround that I can get to solve my problem. I'd personally hate having to wait any amount of time to get my problem fixed by someone else, wondering if they're even working on my problem yet. I'd hate to have that power taken out of my hands, and that's really such a huge huge strength of PC gaming in my opinion. Look at how many games have come out that are buggy from the moment they're launched, but people put in workarounds unofficially to make the game better for them. You lose all of that with this service, but at the same time you don't really gain any of the advantages of the console gaming scene: ie. on demand gaming that doesn't require paying for a service, or relying on a good connection, the used game market, the ability to trade games with friends, no queue lines to wait to play in, etc.
The negative impact I'm concerned about is, if this service takes off and becomes a huge deal, it's going to severely hurt the modding community. Why's a modder going to make large total conversion mods if they know that 95% of the people who own that game CAN'T use it? Also, if it becomes the primary way of gaming, and if games become exclusive on the service it's going to just relaunch the console wars on the PC, when other companies launch similar services. Have fun going on your PC to play a game only to find out it's the exclusive of a service you're not on. Not to mention the fact that if games start becoming exclusive on this service it's going to really really hurt the market for high-end PCs, this might sound like a good thing, but without people having a demand for their cards, expect companies like sapphire, BFG and others to close up shop, and expect graphic card tech to slow down as the demand's not there any more.
My big concern with this thing, is if it becomes the primary way of gaming on the PC we're going to be locked into a pay by month service. If they raise their monthly fees you have no choice but to pay them if you don't want to lose all the games you've already paid for. Unless, of course, you don't actually have to pay an extra fee for individual games, and you just get access to an entire library on demand. Which sounds like a good thing, but at the same time it probably means the monthly fees are going to be pretty high to accommodate the cost of hardware and software development, which might make it cost prohibitive to those who have a limited amount of play time a month, but if this does become the main method of game playing, you might not have a choice.
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited March 2009
Whether their game service will work is something I'm going to have to reserve judgment on, but I'm keeping a cautiously optimistic eye on it.
Their video compression seems interesting though. If it works that quickly and has such a low bandwidth consumption for high-def video, it seems like it would be relatively trivial to apply it to normal video as well as games. I stream Netflix video, and while it looks good, the quality is still slightly below DVD. Seems like it would be stupidly easy for them to either add a movie/TV watching service to OnLive, or sell their compression technology to Netflix or a similar company.
Whether their game service will work is something I'm going to have to reserve judgment on, but I'm keeping a cautiously optimistic eye on it.
Their video compression seems interesting though. If it works that quickly and has such a low bandwidth consumption for high-def video, it seems like it would be relatively trivial to apply it to normal video as well as games. I stream Netflix video, and while it looks good, the quality is still slightly below DVD. Seems like it would be stupidly easy for them to either add a movie/TV watching service to OnLive, or sell their compression technology to Netflix or a similar company.
That's the only thing I like about the service actually. I hope that new compression algorithm they've claimed to have made works as promised, it could be used for all sorts of things. Even if it just means that the quality of streaming videos on sites like youtube could be better it will be worth it.
Posts
Furthermore:
5 Mbps = 2.2 GB per hour
If I'm not mistaken, Comcast (my ISP) has recently introduced 250 GB/month bandwidth caps in the US. Bandwidth caps in other countries are often more strict. Something like this is never coming to Australia.
Megabit per second.
1 byte = 8 bits
That's the connection speed they recommend for HDTV game footage
I don't think they'd actually be using all five megabytes of bandwidth every second, but then, I'm not a scientist, nor do I work there, so what the fuck do I know
All I know is what I saw looked pretty impressive, and I'm more than willing to give these guys the benefit of the doubt after having actually seen this shit in action and knowing they must have some talent behind them to get this thing working and attract nine major publishers to their service
But again, what the fuck do I know
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
I really can't tell if your trying to make an argument for it or against it with your latency write up there. Even at 30 fps your getting almost an entire frame of input lag, which is noticeable and your delay estimates are very optimistic. That aside as someone who has worked at ISPs and specializes in networking if this became even remotely popular you would start getting saturated links and packets would be routed further and further away in more roundabout routes, not to mention the QOS would likely start to automatically assign it lower priority.
It's just not a workable system unless they decide to also become an ISP
A megabit is theoretically equivalent to 125kb a second. So 7.5 megabytes a minute (rounding up). If their compression codec has a throughput of 4mbps for 720p, then per minute you're looking at just a bit over 29 megabytes. An hour is 1.7 gigabytes.
This will never happen in Australia without some kind of bundling/free data deal.
So a megabit is 1024 kilobits?
Edit: thanks to devior for the numbers.
And yeah this will never happen in australia.
The 1ms for the video encoding is the most believable aspect of their PR, and I even have a hard time accepting that unless they've developed the greatest video compression algorithms the world has ever seen.
It's noticable, but the question is will most people care? There is no doubt that this is a tradeoff situation; I am not arguing at all that this is the thing that is going to kill off PCs as direct gaming platform.
There have already been a fairly significant number of gaming press who have demoed this. They agree that there is a gameplay difference if you focus on it, but the games remain playable without a "omg this is so crap, I miss all my shots".
I see it as people who are hardcore about their FPS games will stay with their custom built rigs in the same way that they don't buy PCs from Dell. It's people who don't want to outlay all that cash for a PC, or keep up with the hardware changes who are likely to go for this.
Again, they did sort of address that in the presentation
Someone asked about the bandwidth caps put in place by Comcast and such in a Q&A at the end, and they said they had talked with Comcast about it, that their service didn't actually use all that much bandwidth per month so it had never been a problem, and that if there was a problem, they were sure they'd work something out
So at least they're aware of that
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
As I posted above, that's incorrect. They said as much in the press conference and/or interview articles. Anyone who bases their internet connectivity requirements on the theoretical capacity of a link is stupid.
I'm pondering crunching the numbers on exactly how much compression they have to be getting out of their algorithms. Keep in mind that a number of the key guys in this have been doing video compression for years; Perlman himself is responsible for a number of the Quicktime patents if what I read is to be believed.
Blizzard thought they were prepared for the demand for WoW, and that didn't turn out so well
I really hope they realize how many people are going to want this shit, so they can prepare accordingly
I'm assuming that's what this summer beta is for, but unless it's a very open beta, it still won't adequately prepare them for what's coming
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
And the pitch for this service, if I'm not mistaken, is to let low-end users play high-end games, right? I don't think most of the people on low-end machines care about the sort of PC games that are bleeding-edge, and I don't think those interested in the high-end games are actually going to be able to get high-end performance out of this service once all of the limitations of the Internet are taken into account.
Most betas have phases where they incrementally add more people...
Yes, and they're universally never prepared when release actually rolls around
But I'm thinking of MMOs. With a service like this, based around a one megabyte browser plugin, it'll probably be way easier to get lots and lots of people to stress test it
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
There will be significant queues, guaranteed. Despite their claims of reducing the cost per hardware unit dramatically over what a joeblow pays for a new gaming PC, they will be optimistically cautious about their hardware deployments.
I'm also sure that a lot of people who try it won't subscribe to the service, at least not right away, so there'll be a massive demand glut at the start that will probably taper off.
That could be true, so you may see the service segment towards games that aren't FPS games.
Not really, the pitch appears to be multipronged. Community like XBL, videos like vimeo/youtube, game variety like gametap, cloud-based storage for saves, etc like Steam/Google, and ease of use of consoles (no need to buy new hardware every 18 months, keep up with nvidia/ati/intel/amd).
And I'm sure you're partially right; there will be a lot of people who can't play on the high end streams due to internet bottlenecks. But a lot of people miss the point that without services like this (and streaming video before it, and MP3 downloading before that) everyone would still be using dialup. ISPs invest in new infrastructure when demand is placed on their networks. Demand is placed on their networks when new, consumer-attractive services come to market. This, I think, is one of those.
Oh god. I don't care if you American bastards get huge data limits that make the Australian collective e-peen cry; if MMOs move to a structure like this that removes the need to download multi-gig patches and clients, everyone will give it a shot.
Exactly! This shit is going to change everything, even if it doesn't work quite as well as advertised
It's gonna be fucking insane for the next few years, everyone's gonna be fuckin' around with this technology and making it work better and work faster and do more for less money. It's an exciting time, my friends
Hell, I don't even think the company is in danger of failing if not so many people use their service, since their subsidiary developed that facial modeling technology used in several very successful major motion pictures
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
Bullshit
You'll get with the times, just like everybody else
It's like when everyone was all "no sir I ain't buyin' all my movies all over again on these new fangled dee vee dees, I'll just stick to the VHS tapes I already got"
Change is inevitable, especially when you're talking about technology
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
Seriously though when are they going to improve the service?
destroy Australia
No one likes living there anyway
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
Living here is awesome.
Everyday is a shrimp on a barby.
Even if the service worked as advertised (and it probably will at some point in the future), I still wouldn't pay for it if I didn't have to.
I had the Sega Channel back in the day, and it was the coolest motherfucking thing in the world... until the service was cancelled and the games no longer accessible. Ever since, I've gone for physical media over other options whenever possible.
I know 100% digital distribution and content streaming services are likely to be the future, but I'm not jumping on board any sooner than I have to.
No. I'm not a fan of streaming my games from their servers. I'm not a fan of Steam. I'm not a fan of DLC. I'm not a fan of subscriptions. Money can be tight at times, and internet isn't always available for me. Like I said. I'll play what I already have (I still have my NES, SNES, N64, DC, GC, PS2, PS3) .. I don’t plan on getting rid of them and like having hard copies of my games. I don't buy games with bullshit ass DRM's (tis why I'm giving up on PC gaming).
I'm sure there are enough people out there like 'me' where companies still want to take my money. If not, like I said, I'll find a new hobby or keep playing what I have. Fuck all this shit in the ass :P Pardon my french.
Remember that it's not just the box, there are fees involved. This isn't a free lunch.
I would say most low-end users are low-end user simply because they don't want to spend $Texas to get a high-end computer. One of the main barriers to PC gaming is the fact that specs keep increasing and upgrading consistently is pretty much a necessity. Having to dump $1000 or so every couple of years is a tough pill to swallow for a lot of folk, even those who like PC gaming.
I mean think about all the threads in this forum for some new PC game coming out. You'll very frequently see something like "Holy Crap, time to upgrade my PC" or "Oh man, that game is never going to run on my comp". I've never seen someone say "That game looks too pretty for me. I'm a low-end gamer so I'm not interested."
There's definitely a huge market out there for something like this. Think about how many people own a computer. That's their market.
I'm going to remain skeptical until I see this thing working and delivering on its promises, but how can you people not be excited by the possibilities? :P
Fixed that one for you.
This. But.. if others find a purpose for it, good for them.
Just don't bother trying to install mods, user interfaces, or anything like that.
Oh, also, don't even bother trying to play hot new release games for a while after they come out as the service crashes from the huge influx of people all trying to play at once.
Also, won't it be fun paying Monthly fees TWICE a month for an MMO? Weeeee!
I wonder what happens when the remote machine you're playing off of BSODs or hangs, or if a file gets corrupted and ruins your save.
The one thing I love about PC gaming is how dynamic it is and how if I have a problem with ANYTHING I have the whole internet out there to help me solve the problem. With this, solutions are out of my hands, I have to wait for someone else to fix my problem, oh and I'll probably be put in a queue to have my problem looked at.
I'm interested to see their pricing structure.
If I'm paying a monthly fee for the service, AND I have to pay a one time fee per game, and I stop my subscription to the services will they send me a physical copy of the game I bought and can no longer play?
Maybe it's because I've already got a great PC, but I just don't see any upside to this, all I see are a lot of hurdles, downsides and other potential problems/limitations.
And yes, it's entirely because you're sitting in the section of the market that has the money, time, interest and knowledge to have a high end PC and maintain it.
There's still going to be servers sending out all that data, having a lot of people trying to log in to play at the same time would slow that down in the same way that a lot of people logging onto an MMO server at the same time slow that down. Unless they actually have a single high end PC devoted per person, but even that's questionable because you're going to have to go through a service portal to log into that PC, and that service portal that you're going to be connected to the whole time that's streaming stuff to you is going to slow down with a lot of simultaneous connections.
But you bring up another issue, queuing to play. How much is that going to suck if you just bought a new game over the service and have to wait an hour to play it.
I also don't really see the market that this is trying to cater to. The market that for some reason has a great internet connection, no concern over bandwidth caps, little or no console gaming alternatives, and for some reason a ghetto PC and has the money to spend on a monthly service for a game that could end up costing more than the game would cost to buy in a brick and mortar?
The truth is that PC gaming is on the decline...as time passes the machines out their trying to play games vary more and more, putting a lot of pressure on developers to produce games that work on a lot of different computers. Most genres have been pushed primarily onto consoles now, with a few difficult conversions still attempting a move (RTS games). A service like this could breathe new life into PC games.
And while I have grown up with games, and I would like to be a grown-up with games...my life gets more complicated by the day. At 23 now I am both working and in school and it would be nice to not have to worry about going to the store to pick up the new game, getting a new GPU, or sending in my RROD xbox. Whatever people can do to streamline gaming as a hobby would be great for keeping it a part of my life.
I try to play games online with my buddies now and while one of us can get it working sometimes the others cant run it on their machines without searching forums for answers or waiting for game updates and patches. Another issue we run into often is router and port conflictions, on Xbox PC and PS3. It is always a battle trying to play together...but if we all know that we can connect to this service than we don't have to worry because the service will be connecting to everybody else, or connecting us to each other at least. That would save me a lot of headaches.
I am obviously all for this service and I hope it is immensely succesful and becomes a staple of the gaming industry. I doubt it's success will have any kind of real negative impact on those of you who want to stick with your big gaming rigs.
This is still going to be a problem even with this service. Companies are still going to have to make their games work on different types of systems, except in this case you probably will have to wait (possibly a long long time) for official fixes to come out. If a game gets released that doesn't work right on the types of PCs the OnLive service is using, you're going to be waiting out for them to fix it, but you'll still be paying for the service.
Also, people have been saying PC gaming's on the decline for like a decade now.
Rant warning:
I guess where you and I differ is how you don't want to deal with problems that arise with PC gaming, whereas I like that I can deal with the problems myself. I don't have to wait for some official patch or fix to get my stuff working. Usually there's some unofficial fix or workaround that I can get to solve my problem. I'd personally hate having to wait any amount of time to get my problem fixed by someone else, wondering if they're even working on my problem yet. I'd hate to have that power taken out of my hands, and that's really such a huge huge strength of PC gaming in my opinion. Look at how many games have come out that are buggy from the moment they're launched, but people put in workarounds unofficially to make the game better for them. You lose all of that with this service, but at the same time you don't really gain any of the advantages of the console gaming scene: ie. on demand gaming that doesn't require paying for a service, or relying on a good connection, the used game market, the ability to trade games with friends, no queue lines to wait to play in, etc.
The negative impact I'm concerned about is, if this service takes off and becomes a huge deal, it's going to severely hurt the modding community. Why's a modder going to make large total conversion mods if they know that 95% of the people who own that game CAN'T use it? Also, if it becomes the primary way of gaming, and if games become exclusive on the service it's going to just relaunch the console wars on the PC, when other companies launch similar services. Have fun going on your PC to play a game only to find out it's the exclusive of a service you're not on. Not to mention the fact that if games start becoming exclusive on this service it's going to really really hurt the market for high-end PCs, this might sound like a good thing, but without people having a demand for their cards, expect companies like sapphire, BFG and others to close up shop, and expect graphic card tech to slow down as the demand's not there any more.
My big concern with this thing, is if it becomes the primary way of gaming on the PC we're going to be locked into a pay by month service. If they raise their monthly fees you have no choice but to pay them if you don't want to lose all the games you've already paid for. Unless, of course, you don't actually have to pay an extra fee for individual games, and you just get access to an entire library on demand. Which sounds like a good thing, but at the same time it probably means the monthly fees are going to be pretty high to accommodate the cost of hardware and software development, which might make it cost prohibitive to those who have a limited amount of play time a month, but if this does become the main method of game playing, you might not have a choice.
Their video compression seems interesting though. If it works that quickly and has such a low bandwidth consumption for high-def video, it seems like it would be relatively trivial to apply it to normal video as well as games. I stream Netflix video, and while it looks good, the quality is still slightly below DVD. Seems like it would be stupidly easy for them to either add a movie/TV watching service to OnLive, or sell their compression technology to Netflix or a similar company.
That's the only thing I like about the service actually. I hope that new compression algorithm they've claimed to have made works as promised, it could be used for all sorts of things. Even if it just means that the quality of streaming videos on sites like youtube could be better it will be worth it.