On the last day of GDC 2009, we got a chance to talk to John Spinale about OnLive, a technology that, as Anthony Burch once said, "just confuses me in my head." Dedicated to rendering all your high-end graphics for you, OnLive will provide games to those who don't wish to spend $600 on their video cards alone, but still would like to "pwn some n00bs" within the comfort of their own home.
Check out the video after the jump to see the service running on its own (in a controlled environment, mind you). Don't forget to let us know what you think, and to check out the rest of our GDC 2009 coverage.
There is NO WAY this is going to work. It's just too good to be true, especially on the scale they claim they're going to operate at, and too many factors that are out of their control, and out of OUR control, all of which are critical to success, that other much larger players have failed to make manifest.
If they can make this work AS CLAIMED it could mean a sea change in gaming, but their claims of "stealth development" are pretty whack.
There was an article on Eurogamer that describes in detail the massive obstacles the OnLive people need to get over.
I honestly hope to be proved wrong, but until then I'm taking any of their claims with a whole mine's worth of salt.
I would have loved this if it had existed 2 or 3 years ago. Now it doesn't really matter to me. I've learned that if you build your own rig, PC gaming can actually be much cheaper than console gaming. Even with a high end rig, while the entry cost is greater, the price of upgrading doesn't really have to be, especially with ATI forcing down the prices of high end cards. And it's really a myth that you need a new video card every 2 or 3 years.
No need to buy a game or need to upgrade your computer. The only problem I see with this is bandwith usage limitations. Also what happens if they drop a game from their server? You can't play it anymore. Also it doesn't seem you can mod the games or have a custom server. Not much player control. The bragging mode and the ability to check out other people playing games is cool however.
If you're too lazy to read the Eurogamer article, there's an interesting reality check in there.
In order to send you 720p video at 60fps, over a 5MB internet connection at the 1ms latency level they claim, their video encoder (the software that encodes your video stream for broadcast to your monitor/tv/micro-console) would have to run at 1000fps.
ONE THOUSAND. For every single connection. Consistently, over a distance of up to 1000 miles. For potentially MILLIONS of users. All simultaneously. And all for a subscription fee that's cheaper than Xbox Live Gold.
If they had the kind of tech that could actually accomplish that, what the fuck are they doing wasting it on streaming video games?!
unangbangkay:
One thousand is not for every connection. It just means that if the encoding per frame can be done in 1 ms, the encoder is capable of 1000fps, which is more than 16 times necessary for realtime encoding of 60fps video. This is an outstanding achievement if true.
I personally think, this is not achievable on a large scale. How will they be able to handle millions of players, at any given time? If this is meant to replace consoles, (there's a hundred million next gen consoles around, not counting pc's), it's better be able to hold millions of concurrent players. (even 1% of usage causes 1 million connections, for just next-gen console owners)
@Emrah: thats the point. the only POSSIBLE way to scale virtual computing to this size is either breaking the laws od physics or finding a convenient wizard or Miss Cleo.
also. as Unang put it. If I had the most amazing, magical, groundbreaking, godawfully leaps and bounds above the competition video encoding ever seen on gods green earth, why would my first thought be "gee gosh golly, lets make a subscription videogame service" instead of "lets license this to every video encoding and camcorder company on earth and become filthy rich for zero effort or upkeep!"?
Well, something that was brought up at work when I was chatting about this, is perhaps it's hardware encoding, rather than software, that is, if the dongle is required to plug into your laptop, too.
Personally, I think it's all a pipe dream. I won't play shooters on my Mac with a BT mouse because I don't like the slight (miniscule even) amount of lag between input and action. There's no way this is going to be responsive enough to please the core crowd.
I signed up for the beta, but I doubt this will ever fly.
I enjoyed watching the service--but you all, as gamers, know how important response time. When I'm shopping for monitors I don't even buy something that's over 6ms response time because you know you'll feel the lag--imagine adding that lag to lag between you and the onlive server, AND the lag from the onlive server to the game server, then back again.
I do think it'll be a cool game-renting service though. Sortof a massive demo subscription. Gamer Edie brought up a good point though--they weren't demonstrating Audio, I wonder how good that'll be.
@unangbankay very true. Also, I would much rather have the satisfaction of getting my own high end gaming pc play my games, instead of having it controlled by some obscure figure at the end of a cable. I see the appeal, I just don't see how this will be possible. I think It's going to be tested, but the technical challenges will ultimately show a more different fate. I'd give it at least ten more years to make this even remotely practical.
Yes. Therein lies the problem. even with a one to one setup of that it can be a bt laggy. now imagine running multiple instances of crysis off a single server while having that sort of setup to multiple houses across the entire nation with no noticeable lag whatsoever. thats where it starts getting a tad unbelievable.
If it works it will be awesome but I don't think, even if it did, that it would kill consoles. There is no feeling like playing with people in the flesh and any online service can't replicate that.
unangbankay Eurogamer article does a great job of displaying the very possible problems with this service. I don't have a problem with another controlling my game ownership, though, as long as it means i don't ever need to buy a console ever again.
And there's the rub. How reliable do you think the service will be once graphics start jumping up in quality? OnLive isn't suddenly going to halt the progress of technology, which means they'd have to constantly upgrade their datacenters and servers once CryEngine 3, Unreal Engine 4, and every engine come out, at perhaps even MORE often than the average PC owner, since on OnLive's servers you can't tweak down settings in exchange for performance - not if you want to uphold your service promises.
Upgrading costs money, everyone who's ever owned a technological device knows that, and it's going to cost OnLive ASSLOADS to upgrade datacenters that serve millions of people and STILL deliver as advertised. Can they pay for that with a subscription cheaper than Live? Maybe temporarily, but that cost WILL be tacked onto YOU.
Those costs could very well end up being greater than what you'd pay for a console or upgrade your computer.
If they make it work, it'll be an amazing feat :-)
however since my 10/100 Mbit network can't even decently stream 720p to my HDTV and nobody has Gb-internet at home over here, my guess is they'll have a long way to go :-)
This won't work right now, period. Bandwidth is far too expensive to provide for the customer base it would likely attract. Not a bad idea, but like the helicopter it will probably have to be put on hold until technology catches up.
I agree with eggz. I'll believe it when I see it. I'm not gonna say it can't be done, but I would imagine there has to be some issues with input lag, framerate, and video compression artifacts.
I really have issues with the whole game ownership thing and ONlive.
What happens to all the titles you spent money on when they retire the servers for that title? I can't see this service feasibly working.
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!
Contest:
4:00 PM on 03.28.2009
| 
Dear Onlive,
Please don't suck.
If you can accomplish that, make service available in Canada.
If they can make this work AS CLAIMED it could mean a sea change in gaming, but their claims of "stealth development" are pretty whack.
There was an article on Eurogamer that describes in detail the massive obstacles the OnLive people need to get over.
I honestly hope to be proved wrong, but until then I'm taking any of their claims with a whole mine's worth of salt.
lmao.
In order to send you 720p video at 60fps, over a 5MB internet connection at the 1ms latency level they claim, their video encoder (the software that encodes your video stream for broadcast to your monitor/tv/micro-console) would have to run at 1000fps.
ONE THOUSAND. For every single connection. Consistently, over a distance of up to 1000 miles. For potentially MILLIONS of users. All simultaneously. And all for a subscription fee that's cheaper than Xbox Live Gold.
If they had the kind of tech that could actually accomplish that, what the fuck are they doing wasting it on streaming video games?!
One thousand is not for every connection. It just means that if the encoding per frame can be done in 1 ms, the encoder is capable of 1000fps, which is more than 16 times necessary for realtime encoding of 60fps video. This is an outstanding achievement if true.
I personally think, this is not achievable on a large scale. How will they be able to handle millions of players, at any given time? If this is meant to replace consoles, (there's a hundred million next gen consoles around, not counting pc's), it's better be able to hold millions of concurrent players. (even 1% of usage causes 1 million connections, for just next-gen console owners)
The only plausible answer is a SCAM
Personally, I think it's all a pipe dream. I won't play shooters on my Mac with a BT mouse because I don't like the slight (miniscule even) amount of lag between input and action. There's no way this is going to be responsive enough to please the core crowd.
I signed up for the beta, but I doubt this will ever fly.
I enjoyed watching the service--but you all, as gamers, know how important response time. When I'm shopping for monitors I don't even buy something that's over 6ms response time because you know you'll feel the lag--imagine adding that lag to lag between you and the onlive server, AND the lag from the onlive server to the game server, then back again.
I do think it'll be a cool game-renting service though. Sortof a massive demo subscription. Gamer Edie brought up a good point though--they weren't demonstrating Audio, I wonder how good that'll be.
Yes. Therein lies the problem. even with a one to one setup of that it can be a bt laggy. now imagine running multiple instances of crysis off a single server while having that sort of setup to multiple houses across the entire nation with no noticeable lag whatsoever. thats where it starts getting a tad unbelievable.
And there's the rub. How reliable do you think the service will be once graphics start jumping up in quality? OnLive isn't suddenly going to halt the progress of technology, which means they'd have to constantly upgrade their datacenters and servers once CryEngine 3, Unreal Engine 4, and every engine come out, at perhaps even MORE often than the average PC owner, since on OnLive's servers you can't tweak down settings in exchange for performance - not if you want to uphold your service promises.
Upgrading costs money, everyone who's ever owned a technological device knows that, and it's going to cost OnLive ASSLOADS to upgrade datacenters that serve millions of people and STILL deliver as advertised. Can they pay for that with a subscription cheaper than Live? Maybe temporarily, but that cost WILL be tacked onto YOU.
Those costs could very well end up being greater than what you'd pay for a console or upgrade your computer.
however since my 10/100 Mbit network can't even decently stream 720p to my HDTV and nobody has Gb-internet at home over here, my guess is they'll have a long way to go :-)
What happens to all the titles you spent money on when they retire the servers for that title? I can't see this service feasibly working.
Who would have believed the idea of a SLINGBOX would have worked years ago.......??