OnLive...death of dedicated pc hardware?

I had always dreamed of this concept, but just assumed that the latency issues alone would never allow it to happen. Wrong.


So, giving them the benefit of the doubt about latency, which was obviously the first problem that came to their minds SEVEN YEARS ago when they started this, consider the potential of this complete bombshell to the gaming world. If this service works, it has effectively leapfrogged the whole concept of digital distribution that is just starting to take shape in the form of Steam, and to a lesser extent Live and PSN, and moved straight to streamed content via cloud computing. think of the possibilities:

First the disadvantages:
1) Lag - even with the best server-side network, the "last mile" of connections to the consumer household will still introduce significant latency. This may not be enough to diminish the experience for those with mid to high end connections, but the effects will be felt on older or more remote connections until they are upgraded by their ISP.

2) 720p with heavy compression. Even if the compression artifacts are dealt with, 720p is quite a downgrade for those of us sporting 24-30" panels with 2-4x that resolution. Fortunately, as bandwidth improves, there's no reason the service can scale to 1080p or higher.

3) Price. Will a monthly fee really be a better deal in the long run than a console (if not a PC)? Will games drop in price over time as fast or as much as they do in retail? Likely not.

4) Mods, physical media, messing with config files, reselling games etc.. No reason (popular) mods couldn't be supported, but it would likely never reach the level of customization that you get on PCs. The rest are history.

5) Server load. Assuming they have no trouble handling average numbers of users on a daily basis, how will they handle times like major game releases, when everyone is hitting the servers at once. For games like Crysis, it is 1 user per server, and they obviously will not be able to provide that for everyone at once and call themselves a business. So what will it be. Long waiting ques on and after releases? Pay more for early access?

6) Video and voice chat. Will there be a unified system for this across all games? Seems like once ingame, interfaces were left pretty much up to the developers from the demo. Are there even enough ports on the TV box for a camera and controllers?

7) Offline play. ...duh.



Now, for the advantages, and some speculation on what this could make possible:



1) Short term: Better PC game development. All the games running on onlive are PC games. If this service takes off, PC development will boom like crazy. Unless developers decide to develop exclusively for onlive, PC games will likely be released alongside onlive games, with better optimization and use of current hardware.

2) Unimaginable graphics. Games are not currently designed to use every last core of a GTX 285. If developers are suddenly given a platform that has a single, bleeding edge configuration, they can optimize or even design games for it. Imagine a game designed from the ground up for a 285, like they are for console hardware, with every last possible ounce of power utilized? PC gamers with similar hardware to that used in the onlive servers (mid-high end spec PCs with a special video compression card) will benefit hugely from this.

3) MMOs and their derivatives: MMOFPS etc... All of the high bandwidth interaction is occurring between servers located mere feet away from each other, over GBit+ links. Imagine the types of MMOs this allows for. No longer does it matter how many people are on a server. Each player is merely sending their controller input and receiving a video stream. More players does NOT equal more bandwidth to OR from the end user. Only more processing power and bandwidth between SERVERS, where there is plenty to go around. Imagine an MMOFPS with THOUSANDS of players on maps hundreds of times larger than the biggest Battlefield maps. Memory, processing, it all matters very little now. There's no need to design a game for min spec for onlive, so the if a map requires a min 8GB of ram - no problem!

4) Your profile...anywhere. Like Steam, but now on your HDTV as well. But far better. From the demo: you could PAUSE a game at home on your TV, go to work, and resume it from its exact state on a whole different platform anywhere in the country instantly. Without even having to load a save file. Amazing.

5) Small developers - can publish a game straight to the service without a publisher or retail presence and immediately have access to millions of people. Like PSN or Live Arcade, but bigger and potentially less restrictive, especially for full games.

6) Exclusive titles. Just imagine what a game developed for this platform could do. Imagine a game designed to run at 720p on an i7 920, GTX285, 8GB ram, SSD / enterprise level storage and nearly unlimited bandwidth. Blows current consoles out of the water, and even if a future console was released that could match that performance, the upgradeability of onlive would ensure that that would not last for long, certainly less than a 5-year console cycle.

7) Movie distribution etc... Finally the right device for media digital distribution? Depending on licensing and studios, it very well could be.




I can not imagine what's going through the minds of Sony and MS execs. They must have shat a collective brick. Or 10. Nintendo is safe for now with their unique gameplay, first party titles and interface, but what's to say they just release another controller (or allow third party controllers) for onlive? Gamepad, mouse and keyboard are already supported - even on the TV unit. After all, the only thing unique about the Wii's hardware is the controller. It already can be made to work on the PC. Just a matter of time...

I doubt that Onlive will be an immediate death blow to its competition at launch. But 3 years out... 5 years? If the current Big 3 don't react quickly, lets just say that the next generation of consoles that have to go up against this thing are in for the fight of their lives. I have never before been so excited at the future of the gaming industry. Even if it isn't immediately successful, Onlive has begun a revolution that will change the way we play our games forever... Assuming it's not another Phantom.
 
I absolutely love the idea. But I don't know if our internet would be capable of this today. Maybe some of those European connections can do it :p.
 
It's not just the latency problem. You've also got a major problem, if this takes off, with regards to scalability. Think of the hardware they have just to run EVE online, a MMO with 40k+ concurrent users.... Now take that, multiply it by 10, add GPU rendering, and see where it gets you.

One of two things. 1. The amount of heat and power needed to run it might give us a conventional China Syndrome, or. :)

2. It's not practical.

Latency and internet aside, the server scalability for 50-500k users playing Crysis, even if only @ 1280X720 is going to be insane. Great idea, probably the future, but like so many things in this era, about a decade or two ahead of its time.
 
I keep seeing "In the future" and "eventually". You realize that in the future, eventually, this system will play *current* titles. What about the titles we'll be playing *in the future*, eventually? Those titles will have even higher hardware requirements, even better visuals, we'll have bigger even higher-resolution monitors. If you think 720p is a downgrade *now*, just think of how much of a downgrade it will be "in the future" when this is ready "eventually".

By the time this service can offer Crysis to the masses, Crysis will be far from impressive by the days standards.
 
What's a decent gaming computer cost? My last build was basically $800 and is now a hand-me down to my younger brother, whose happily playing crysis, et all, on that rig (7900gt, opty 185, 3gb ram) Sure, it aint great, but it is probably as good as the onLive video-signal IMHO.

It was stated that the onLive 'device' will cost about the same as a wii, whatever that means. I'll just say $150. I figure the subscription price will run around $20/month.

For three years that's $870... suspiciously close to the cost of a decent 3-year old gaming pc.

I still believe OnLive has a good idea, but their challenge will be in capturing the 'casual' market who will not suck up resources, without getting drained by hard-core gamers drinking bandwidth like drunken sailors.
 
silenteye said:
I absolutely love the idea. But I don't know if our internet would be capable of this today. Maybe some of those European connections can do it :p.
Click to expand...

Some of them and I'm thinking of places like Japan as well. The U.S. is way behind the curve when it comes to Internet speed and cost thereof.

Last I looked it up, I forgot, what are we? 15th place in the industrialized world when it comes to Internet performance/cost or some rubbish like that? It was some pretty pathetic figure last I read. I can't remember specifically.

As skeptical as I am, I could see this product taking off in other parts of the world that are considerably ahead of the U.S. when it comes to the Internet.
 
This is real. Forget the hypotheticals. It will work, but won't be as nice as using your decent gaming PC for all the probable reasons everyone is regurgitating.

The only question left is how much it will cost the end user, and whether the masses will consider it worth it to pay that cost for the service. Remember, it's only reduced performance if you're already setup with a decent gaming rig.

All other things equal (and to many parents, I believe they would perceive them to be so), do you think a parent would buy/build a kick ass gaming rig for their child or rather just pay for this service?
 
It is real, but it also really won't work. When they did testing on this, how many people have they tried? I would guess its no more than 1000, and I think that is relatively out of the reange they were testing at. If it really does take off, you'd guess atleast atleast half a million would try it, and I doubt they even have the facilities to be capable of rendering and processing all of those people. Then bandwidth problems would lag it down too. And mentioned before is that it is compressed and doesn't look as good.

The charge might be 10 dollars a month but with the scale of it and how much resources you'll probably take up, I'd guess more than that. I mean, WoW, LotRO, and other MMOs already charged like 10 bucks a month, and they don't even do the rendering and processing on their end for you AND it's just one game.
 
real-time network engineering down to the sub-packet level.
Click to expand...

Son of a bitch, they have subpacket engineering!

I am sold, baby, SOLD.

;)

My subpackets are in your networks, speeding up your games. lol
 
MasterTactician said:
2) Unimaginable graphics. Imagine a game designed from the ground up for a 285, like they are for console hardware, with every last possible ounce of power utilized?
Click to expand...

And imagine how outdated the 285 would be by the time a game "designed from the ground up" for it is released. Just like with consoles, which are usually equivalent to high end PCs at launch before becoming progressively outdated. How often would onlive upgrade? "Often" would invalidate the advantages to a fixed platform (and would be crazy expensive), "rarely" would mean the tech was out of date most of the time.
 
Doesn't sound like a good idea to me except maybe MMOs. Who's going to pay for it? It'd suck if I had to pay a monthly subscription (and possibly ISP fees for going over the bandwidth cap) just to play a single player game. Not to mention that they could pull support for the game at anytime and I would never be able to play it again. It'd also kill the modding community.
 
MasterTactician said:
I can not imagine what's going through the minds of Sony and MS execs. They must have shat a collective brick. Or 10. Nintendo is safe for now with their unique gameplay, first party titles and interface, but what's to say they just release another controller (or allow third party controllers) for onlive? Gamepad, mouse and keyboard are already supported - even on the TV unit. After all, the only thing unique about the Wii's hardware is the controller. It already can be made to work on the PC. Just a matter of time...
Click to expand...

As for the console manufacturers, just wait until they PARTNER w/ Onlive! who says they need to compete? Microsoft could partner w/ Onlive, allowing users to play PC titles on their 360/future systems. instead of fighting it, embrace it and both sides will make money. Xbox/ps3 will continue to have their exclusive titles, this service will just expand what they can offer. Just think, developers could code one game that can be played on PC/MAC/onlive/360/ps3/wii... no porting required.

this will not replace PC gaming but it will help non-enthusiasts get access to PC games w/o worrying about system requirements.

i don't think this will work as advertised out of the box, but i do believe it is the future.
 
Litfod said:
And imagine how outdated the 285 would be by the time a game "designed from the ground up" for it is released. Just like with consoles, which are usually equivalent to high end PCs at launch before becoming progressively outdated. How often would onlive upgrade? "Often" would invalidate the advantages to a fixed platform (and would be crazy expensive), "rarely" would mean the tech was out of date most of the time.
Click to expand...

I obviously did not mean that literally. It was just an example. In reality, developers could develop for whatever the spec would be for OnLive when the game was due to be released. Either way, it means games could be developed not just to take advantage of high end hardware, but do so without having to still run on lower end systems. For those of us with high end PCs, this is good news, as standalone PC games will not likely stop being released. Hopefully we'll see games that push graphics, and more importantly, AI, physics, larger environments and interactivity to a new level, thanks to not having to run on min-spec, single core, 512MB/1GB systems.
 
I'm LTTP. People, namely us computer nuts, love modifying things. Items and ideas like this take that away from society. So, cloud computer FTL once again! Say no to communism!
 
If, (huge if), this actually works on any scale, it has more potential to replace console games than it does PC games. The quality level of the graphics, the game they used as a demo, the whole "it's cheap and it plays games" atmosphere they are portraying with this service, all points toward the console experience more than the PC. If MS and/or Sony see that this will actually work, I expect a either a slap down, or a buyout and absorption or shutdown. Provided it actually works that is. The optimal conditions demo they put on is hardly convincing me at this point.

With today's infrastructure, this really seems more like it would only be acceptable for casual games and very slow paced games. But then, any old pc can play casual games as is.
 
The "concept" is brilliant.

Its functionality is not there yet, you have pressure from sources they cannot control that are going to limit this from happening, namely, the wallets of ISP's.

You have ISP's trying to already packet shape their networks to prioritize certain things, and eventually they'll find a way to limit bandwidth on many applications. Allowing for one of two things, horrible performance on something you want that you don't buy directly from the ISP (3rd party VoIP is the big kicker here really) but think about it, if they kick your "awesome cloud computing" concept in the family jewels and limit its bandwidth on their end, you're screwed, OR, they charge a premium to uncap it, you're screwed.

Too many issues for this type of thing to work, sounds great, but doesn't put all the 1's and 0's into the equation, for LAN scenario's, incredible abilities, but for Internet play, won't happen unless ISP's give up the goat and play nice (and for a fee, they probably will).

With that said, you're basically a bitch to one company, thats the beauty of PC gaming as it is right now, you have choices. Its basically a convergence of PC with console, and I don't particularly care for those two to be merged, I enjoy PC's for the fact I choose what I want, when I want, and how I want, the flexibility gives me the choice.

There, you have 1 platform (console-esque) that will get updated when they want to update it, and it leaves you on the bench waiting for something fresh and new to come out that will allow for more from the stagnant platform you have.

PC's are not that way, in a typical 12 month cycle you'll have at least 1 generation of components making leaps from just previous months prior, and it keeps the market healthy and flowing. Eliminate that, and you do so much more than make a "stable, easy to develop platform", you basically DRM the PC platform as a whole :|
 
I know this is an old thread but I thought that I would update it about the OnLive service. The service is now avaiable and I just got 12 motnhs for free from a promotion they are having for new members.

So far I have only played a demo of Borderlands and I'm very suprised at how well it ran. There was really no lag at all, when I shot at enemies my rounds hit what I was aiming at, there was no delay or anything that smetimes happens if you get lag. As far as image quality I don't really have anything to compare it to, I haven't played any games for a long time. Here is a screenshot I took while ingame.
12181770.png

Link to full screen

I thought it looked pretty good considering its only using my internet connection.
You can do multiplayer with any games that offer multiplayer also, I'm not sure if you can play with people outside of OnLive though.
 
Last edited:
Nope.

Some of us want to play on something better than watered down, laggy, latency issued 720p. Even the consoles are better than this.


amarvin125 said:
Also I am not working for OnLive trying to do a promotion here or anything
Click to expand...

Kind of reads like it. No offense.

I'm not saying it's you but I know we have a viral marketing campaign going on this forum for this thing.
 
I'm not trying to market it or anything, I just thougt I would give a little review about it thats all. I edited and removed what would be considered marketing.
 
amarvin125 said:
I'm not trying to market it or anything, I just thougt I would give a little review about it thats all. I can remove it if it's considered advertising.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it's fine. Thanks for your impressions. :)
 
How sharp are the graphics?

My understanding is that an Onlive title, in comparison with the maxed-out version of the same game running at, say, 1920x1080, on your own hardware, is like night and day. In other words, there is no comparison.

The reason I had to stop playing Red Dead Redemption recently was due to how god awful the game looked. You just can't compare an upscaled 720p image to the real thing.
 
I just received the "survey" email...

For a gaming service, the questions were ridiculous...
 
amarvin125 said:
I know this is an old thread but I thought that I would update it about the OnLive service. The service is now avaiable and I just got 12 motnhs for free from a promotion they are having for new members.

So far I have only played a demo of Borderlands and I'm very suprised at how well it ran. There was really no lag at all, when I shot at enemies my rounds hit what I was aiming at, there was no delay or anything that smetimes happens if you get lag. As far as image quality I don't really have anything to compare it to, I haven't played any games for a long time. Here is a screenshot I took while ingame.
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5455/12181770.png
Link to full screen

I thought it looked pretty good considering its only using my internet connection.
You can do multiplayer with any games that offer multiplayer also, I'm not sure if you can play with people outside of OnLive though.
Click to expand...
I dont know what world you are living in but I have played Borderlands on OnLive and it is dull looking and laggy as hell. there is absolutely no comparison between playing the normal pc version and OnLive version. yeah you certainly havent played games in a while if you "think" you are getting a good experience with OnLive.
 
I think I may have given the wrong impression; I'm not trying to claim this is the future of gaming or that this is better than pc's or consoles. I have wondered about this service and just wanted to share my opinion about it. As far as quality, your right I haven't played any games for a long time so I might not be up to speed on quality, and for me I did not experience any lag problems that affected my gameplay, however everyone is different because this is dependent on location and internet speed. Of course this is not going to look as good as consoles and definitely not as good as a decent pc with a moderate graphics card. If I had the money I would build a pc to play games with and it would be way better than this service. Since this isn’t costing me any money I thought I would try it and post my thoughts.
 
Eh, call me when it can do 2560x1600 with 4-8x AA, 16x AF, no input/unnoticeable input lag, and max settings, without much/any compression artifacting. 1920x1200 * 3 monitor - 3d Vision Surround or even standard 3-monitor surround (5760x1200) would be sweet too ;).
 
honestly I am impressed that the service works at all. its a cool concept but its not ready for prime time. using low settings at 720 looks horrible already but then throw in the fact that it is compressed and things get even uglier. perhaps if I wasnt playing on a 1080 monitor it would not look so bad.

I live near Atlanta where supposedly a server is located but all the games are just too sluggish. in fact I feel pretty sick after playing the demos. on top of the graphics and lag their pricing is ridiculous. overall I think they will have to also offer non gaming content if they wish to survive in the long run.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Eh, call me when it can do 2560x1600 with 4-8x AA, 16x AF, no input/unnoticeable input lag, and max settings, without much/any compression artifacting. 1920x1200 * 3 monitor - 3d Vision Surround or even standard 3-monitor surround (5760x1200) would be sweet too ;).
Click to expand...

+1. Sure this service can have value if you simply don't have ANY decent hardware which isn't exspensive these days or maybe want to game a laptop. I don't have any problem with the service as a CHOICE but with this as my ONLY option I'm done with gaming. After having my sig rig for a couple of weeks and seeing what it REALLY possible with the best hardware there just wouldn't be any point.

I'd enjoy a Colecovison better than OnLive at that point.
 
Last edited:
I tested it and you can run borderlands at full tilt, with everything high on a 9500gs...a 40$ graphics card. In a 400$ computer (including the graphics card).

The onlive version is missing shadows and other features. Also borderlands isn:t the worlds most graphical intensive program, missing any form of AA.
 
DeathPrincess said:
I tested it and you can run borderlands at full tilt, with everything high on a 9500gs...a 40$ graphics card. In a 400$ computer (including the graphics card).

The onlive version is missing shadows and other features. Also borderlands isn:t the worlds most graphical intensive program, missing any form of AA.
Click to expand...
"full tilt" on a 9500gs? thats even slower than an 8600gt and at what res? 1024x768? any higher and that must be one magical 9500gs because even with a gtx260 I still drop in low 40s and uppers 30s at times.
 
cannondale06 said:
9500gs? thats even slower than an 8600gt and at what res? 1024x768? any higher and that must be one magical 9500gs because even with a gtx260 I still drop in low 40s and uppers 30s at times.
Click to expand...

Oh damnit! Yes I matched Onlive (720p) resolution, with the closest I could, 738p. It is tweeked, but not magical. Its about a 8800 GS (it's around 550/1375/something core/shader memory I dont remember but it was tweaked). I didn't capture frame rate but it's way faster than the 15-20fps reported for onlive, and was definately playable. It only has 512mb VRAM, which would affect it on higher resolutions, but its fine for this kind of thing. Though at this size the non AA borderlands is kind of ugly. I did get one screenshot. For comparison. I was able to play crysis on it back in the day.
 
DeathPrincess said:
Oh damnit! Yes I matched Onlive (720p) resolution, with the closest I could, 738p. It is tweeked, but not magical. Its about a 8800 GS (it's around 550/1400/1600 core/shader memory I dont remember but it was tweaked). I didn't capture frame rate but it's way faster than the 15-20fps reported for onlive, and was definately playable. It only has...512mb VRAM, which would affect it on higher resolutions, but its fine for this kind of thing. Though at this size the non AA borderlands is kind of ugly. I did get one screenshot. For comparison.
Click to expand...
fair enough for the res then but a 9500gs is no where near the power of an 8800gs. a 9500gs at stock clocks would be no better than an 8600gt and overclocked it would barely beat it. also even at 1920 Borderlands uses less than 400mb of vram so no issues no there.

I dont know why you are getting just 15-20fps for Borderlands using Onlive because I am at 45-60fps when using it. :confused:

 
Last edited:
cannondale06 said:
fair enough for the res then but a 9500gs is no where near the power of an 8800gs. a 9500gs at stock clocks would be no better than an 8600gt and overclocked it would barely beat it. also even at 1920 Borderlands uses less than 400mb of vram so no issues no there.

I dont know why you are getting 15-20fps for Borderlands using Onlive because I am at 45-60fps when using it. :confused:
Click to expand...

Nope I messed up, 8600 GS. And onlive is only availible in mainland america (not canada, alaska or hawaii). The 15-20fps comes from some test during the demo period from some website (I have the best memory). But does not sound surprising based on peak load and distance from server. I was also surprised that you need a dual core to run onlive in the first place. It seems a little weird as for old computers to push low resolution video, youll still have to upgrade.
The 9500 GS card came from a rendering module, and were the ones with the fan breaking problem, it was offered to be replaced for free, but they wanted the whole computer to do it. The fan works but makes a load of noise, so it's the reserve unit. Because of that it is a heavily overclocked card (i'm not concerned with it breaking). I don't remember how much by, it was pushed until it snowed and then edged back.
But the point is to get better performance from a computer you don't need to spend a lot, and you get to keep your games after it goes offline in 2013.

onlive2010071716053194.png

2hh0itt.jpg

Onlive (1) vs 40$ card (2)

I saw you changes, but note that your not moving. Also the frame rate is devolved from the movie your receiving, not from the game. If I filmed tetris with my HD camera, id have constant 60fps.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top