Onlive: Scam or Revolution?

[Letho]

So, while wasting my time on the Internets, I ran across across something interesting that they're calling Onlive. Maybe a lot of you people know about it already, but it was the first time I heard about it. For those of you who are like me and never heard of it, Onlive is a system that is supposed to allow you to play games with high-end graphics on an entry-level PC. Basically, what it does is run a game on the Onlive server somewhere far away and send you the picture via the Internet. So you're not actually running the game on your computer, you're simply getting the feed from a distant server. For more info, check some of the trailers (http://www.gametrailers.com/game/11029.html).

Now, first I thought this was an amazing idea. But then I became suspicious. In theory, this seems great. But if this service becomes as popular as the creators hope for, just how much server power would they need to run games from hundreds, thousands, hell, hundreds of thousands of users? And is there a connection capable of sending such high quality feed all over the world without serious lag? And even if there is, what about the controls? The signal has to go through your controller and to their server and then back to you in very, VERY short time for the gameplay not to be affected.

So the more I thought about it, the more I thought that it's all bull, that during the presentation they had a bunch of servers running somewhere in the back room. But that's just good ole skeptical me. How about the rest of you? Any thoughts?

[Sorahn]

I have mixed feelings about the idea.

For one, I agree with you that I'm not sure that the current internet bandwidth can handle all that information without some type of lag. Video streaming is a whoooole lot of information. I can't tell you how many times I've gone to watch even just like a you-tube video or a game trailer and ran out of buffer. If my internet connection fails to stream me video at like 300 x 200 resolution, COMPRESSED... how in the hell is it supposed to handle 1280 x 1024 (their highest resolution supported) uncompressed? I think in order to make it even remotely possible, there's going to have to be a MASSIVE quality loss, that I don't think is acceptable. PS3, Xbox360, and good PCs are capable of producing amazingly detailed and realistic images. Imagine having to watch those images like a full-screened you-tube vid. Bad.

What I really like about it though are really the "side-effects" of their platform. Things like spectating anyone on any game anywhere. That would be sweet. You could preview games that you didn't actually own by watching someone actually play it. Also, their "brag clip" feature, where when something totally amazing happens in your game, you simply press a button, and the last 10-15 seconds or so of gameplay is automatically saved so you and others can watch it later. That would be so awesome. I could have documented proof of that triple-kill I got with one sniper bullet (that really happened...).

I definitely think something like this would be feasible someday, but right now? Probably not. Or at least, it might become successful for the more casual gamers who don't mind playing at crappy resolutions with some lag. But there's just not enough substance to attract more hardcore guys.

[Kerrigan Muldoon]

I have to agree with you, however I do think we should give them some credit. I am pretty sure they are intelligent enough to have noticed the same problems and probably have done something about it. Now I'm just really curious how they exceeded at it.
If it will be you-tube quality shitty games with 3 seconds of delay then they are not going to make any money, but if you get at least above average quality graphics and no delay then it might be interesting.

Btw, I'm pretty sure they aren't targeting hardcore players to begin with. Hardcore players work not to eat but to pay their uber computers and games. Even the catagories below the hardcore players won't be really interested in this. I guess they are aiming for the masses, the casual gamers who don't want to or can't buy top quality hardware.

[Letho]

I have mixed feelings about the idea.

For one, I agree with you that I'm not sure that the current internet bandwidth can handle all that information without some type of lag. Video streaming is a whoooole lot of information. I can't tell you how many times I've gone to watch even just like a you-tube video or a game trailer and ran out of buffer. If my internet connection fails to stream me video at like 300 x 200 resolution, COMPRESSED... how in the hell is it supposed to handle 1280 x 1024 (their highest resolution supported) uncompressed? I think in order to make it even remotely possible, there's going to have to be a MASSIVE quality loss, that I don't think is acceptable. PS3, Xbox360, and good PCs are capable of producing amazingly detailed and realistic images. Imagine having to watch those images like a full-screened you-tube vid. Bad.

What I really like about it though are really the "side-effects" of their platform. Things like spectating anyone on any game anywhere. That would be sweet. You could preview games that you didn't actually own by watching someone actually play it. Also, their "brag clip" feature, where when something totally amazing happens in your game, you simply press a button, and the last 10-15 seconds or so of gameplay is automatically saved so you and others can watch it later. That would be so awesome. I could have documented proof of that triple-kill I got with one sniper bullet (that really happened...).

I definitely think something like this would be feasible someday, but right now? Probably not. Or at least, it might become successful for the more casual gamers who don't mind playing at crappy resolutions with some lag. But there's just not enough substance to attract more hardcore guys.In one of the interviews, the head honcho of the whole project says that with 20 Mbit connection one could play in the highest resolutions. He also says that with 2 Mbit connection (which is kind of the minimum nowadays), you could still play in standard resolution (I believe he mentioned Wii quality graphics). That's why I became so doubtful. I mean, I have a 2 Mbit connection and I'm running into same problems as you, Sorahn, with videos occasionally running out of buffer. And while you can pause a video and wait a moment for it to load, something like that would be devastating while playing a game. So this idea might be a bit ahead of the the time, because most people still don't have blistering fast Internet connections that could handle something like this.

I do agree that the side effects are interesting. Other than what you mentioned, there is also the ability to try the games out. Even if all you get is a youtube-y graphics, you could still try out the gameplay before you decide whether or not you want to buy the game. So we should definitely give them some credit for the idea, but the core of it, the gaming, might not turn out the way they promote it.

I have to agree with you, however I do think we should give them some credit. I am pretty sure they are intelligent enough to have noticed the same problems and probably have done something about it. Now I'm just really curious how they exceeded at it.
If it will be you-tube quality shitty games with 3 seconds of delay then they are not going to make any money, but if you get at least above average quality graphics and no delay then it might be interesting.

Btw, I'm pretty sure they aren't targeting hardcore players to begin with. Hardcore players work not to eat but to pay their uber computers and games. Even the catagories below the hardcore players won't be really interested in this. I guess they are aiming for the masses, the casual gamers who don't want to or can't buy top quality hardware.Yeah, I agree, and I think the developers of Onlive agree as well. I believe they even mentioned in the interview that they don't think their system would ever stop people from buying games. I mean, I certainly don't see myself using such a system any time soon, partially because of my skepticism towards new things and partially because I buy/download pirated software, so I get it for cheapo/free :P. But for more casual gamers this would be a very attractive alternative.


But back to the beginning. The reason why I voiced my doubts is mainly because when I first heard about it, it seemed like a good marketing trick. You know, as if they're trying to sell a product that probably won't do what they promised it will, but they're riding the hype as long as they can to reel in more investors. I guess the only way to find out is to wait and see.

[Visla Eraclaire]

I'm always happy to see some kind of innovation, but I don't think that the technical restraints on this sort of thing could ever be overcome to my satisfaction. Obviously, as people have said, I'm not really the target market. I'm not quite hardcore, but I have a computer that can play top end games respectably, and I upgrade it whenever that stops being true.

I think the real thing this is suggesting is that in the new demographics of internet and computer use, there are people with significant broadband connections that can handle sending this data back and forth without crippling lag (I suspect it will be lag enough to prevent decent FPS play even with a good connection, but other games it could be possible) and yet without high end systems themselves.

I don't doubt that market exists. Broadband is becoming ubiquitous and I'm sure there are some people sitting there with a snappy internet connection and a video card from 2002.



I think it could be interesting if they ran a multiplayer fps server with everyone doing it this way. That way there wouldn't be two layers of lag (pc=>onlive=>game server) and everyone would be fairly equal.

All in all, I think it's definately not a scam. It might not work, but I think everyone benefits from people trying these sorts of things.

[NightCast]

I'm quite the computer junkie, and I do believe I would qualify as the hardcore gamer type, seeing as, at home, I'm running on two 21" dual monitors and my tower looks something equivalent to the picture I've provided (It's actually a friend's who built something that was similar to mine, but on a smaller budget, and he just finished it, so I got the picture in an email).

That being said the device that you seem to have to buy looks a lot like a router. So theoretically you have a router that has a more specific purpose than your typical, generic internet router. Which means it's specifically programmed to be performing the specific task of streaming to a network of servers all around the world, while devoting the entirety of your connection towards playing the game. I won't go into more in-depth conjectures, because as I said, it's only my speculations. But there are a couple of problems that I notice right off the bat. Even if you use the aforementioned process, it doesn't seem to be effective with people who have multiple people trying to access the internet, which is where I think potential lag issues will occur. That's the biggest problem with my conjecture that I noticed.

[Kerrigan Muldoon]

I don't doubt that market exists. Broadband is becoming ubiquitous and I'm sure there are some people sitting there with a snappy internet connection and a video card from 2002.Yep, and it fits perfectly in the idea of being able to do practically everything, everywhere, anything. TV's and computers are already being intergrated into 1 device, mobile phones function as a mini version of it. Serverside applications are becoming more and more attractive since it allows you to access the same stuff from anywhere, anytime and with any crazy piece of hardware you can have.


I think it could be interesting if they ran a multiplayer fps server with everyone doing it this way. That way there wouldn't be two layers of lag (pc=>onlive=>game server) and everyone would be fairly equal.

All in all, I think it's definately not a scam. It might not work, but I think everyone benefits from people trying these sorts of things.Does anyone know DotA, the worldfamous mod for Warcraft 3? For games like that, fast paced session based mp fps/strategy games a platform like this would be perfect. Not only for reducing lag but also to disable cheating, since all calculations are server and not clientside.

I like the idea, but I'll probably never use it. I rarely play games and I don't care a lot about graphics so I prefer older but better games.

[Visla Eraclaire]

My friend is a rabid DotA addict. I think that's a perfect example of the kind of game that could benefit from this technology.

And yeah, it really is only a matter of time before TV and computer are really just one thing. I already use my hd screen as a monitor and a television screen and my friend has that AppleTV thing. Same thing's happening with the iPhone and the new version of the Nintendo DS. Two decades ago, you carried one piece of electronic equipment with you, either a cellphone or a pager and only then if you were important. Five years ago and leading up to now, people were carrying phones and personal data assistants and portable games and mp3 players. Now it's all condensed again so you carry one thing but it does all that stuff. Professionals (and increasingly normal people) carry blackberries and average people increasingly have iPhones or at least an iTouch (which I have, since iPhone's service is too pricey and I already have a phone). I can't wait until I have less individual devices I have to carry around or fit in my house.

[Sorahn]

Not only for reducing lag but also to disable cheating, since all calculations are server and not clientside.

This is another big reason why I like this idea. It's theoretically impossible to cheat using this system.

Anyway I don't really think this is a scam, but I do think they are trying to hype it up to get more interest. A system like this is only as good as its servers, and servers are expensive. They need investors and early adopters to get on board so that they can hit the ground running rather than just sort of fizzle.

I love innovations like this. And I do think it can work on fast enough servers and fast enough connections. I just think the problem is the average joe game-player doesn't have that kind of connection. I'm running on a 3mbit connection right now, and I had to upgrade to that. That's like my cable company's "premium" package.

But once again, I'm not really the target demographic. While I don't like to use the word "hardcore" to describe myself (because that brings up bad images to me) I'm definitely serious about my games. I want to play at my native resolution of 1440 x 900, and that just isn't possible with that kind of connection.

All-in-all though, I'm pretty excited about what they're trying to do. Because while I'm not about to run out and sign up for it, I think they're thinking in the right ways, and trying to advance the medium.

Not sure if I want these guys on my servers though. Then again, maybe I do... they'll be easier to kill. :cool:

[Letho]

And yeah, it really is only a matter of time before TV and computer are really just one thing. I already use my hd screen as a monitor and a television screen and my friend has that AppleTV thing. Same thing's happening with the iPhone and the new version of the Nintendo DS. Two decades ago, you carried one piece of electronic equipment with you, either a cellphone or a pager and only then if you were important. Five years ago and leading up to now, people were carrying phones and personal data assistants and portable games and mp3 players. Now it's all condensed again so you carry one thing but it does all that stuff. Professionals (and increasingly normal people) carry blackberries and average people increasingly have iPhones or at least an iTouch (which I have, since iPhone's service is too pricey and I already have a phone). I can't wait until I have less individual devices I have to carry around or fit in my house.Advancement in that direction could end the everlasting console wars as well. I mean, aside from perhaps Wii with its specific controls, there is probably only one reason why there couldn't be a Playstation or an Xbox on the far end of your connection. And that one reason would be the drop in sales the console manufacturers would surely suffer should their console be integrated in systems such as Onlive. Because if you can get a PS3/Xbox/whatever exclusive to run on your TV via Internet, there is less chance that you'll be buying the system.

[Sorahn]

Because if you can get a PS3/Xbox/whatever exclusive to run on your TV via Internet, there is less chance that you'll be buying the system.

THIS, combined with the extremely lucrative performance computing market (nVidia, ATI, etc.) are reasons why this will never be too popular. Because when you start messing with a major corporation's bread and butter, you enter into dangerous territory. If Onlive ever becomes a major threat to any of these multi-billion dollar industries, then they will either get bought out or sued.

[Letho]

If Onlive ever becomes a major threat to any of these multi-billion dollar industries, then they will either get bought out or sued.I think the former is more likely to happen than the latter. From what I could gather, for a game to run on Onlive, it has to be adjusted for that specific system by the developers. So it will probably come down to the support they get from the developers and not the console makers. And with more and more titles coming out on multiple platforms simultaneously, it's not impossible that in some foreseeable future they'd be making a version for Onlive as well. And you can't really sue them for that (well, technically you can, because you can pretty much sue anybody for just about anything). You can, however, throw wads of cash on them, buy them off and integrate them into your own system. I wouldn't be surprised if M$ did just that and added Onlive to their XBLA or whatever you call it.

[Max Dirks]

Alot of my friends are optimistic.

We'll see what happens.