OnLive - Future Of Video Gaming?

[brad-short]

FRom a UK perspective, the BBC is a very good resource even tho many people in the UK resent the fact that they HAVE to pay the licence fee. Regarding ONLIVE, the UK broadband infrastructure is at least 5 years away from even beginning to consider being able to provide enough bandwidth for this type of gaming. Besides the fact, that most ISPs in the UK have useage caps, usually around 40gb.

how much streaming video would i get for that. . . .Non starter in the UK i'm afraid. . . . Seen the demos online for the states tho, looks impressive.

 

[PaulMcCartney]

No.

Many of us like to own physical copies of our games.

For example: If a game gets old, you won't be able to play it. It would be removed from the server. They would have complete control over something you paid for.

 

[ballisticn8]

notice how the fanboi mgillespie left out sony move, you know, the wii remote with a lightbulb screwed in at the top... and FYI your BBC friends posted how crappy the ps3 is when it heats up and the soldering on the mobo comes undone.

 

[Snow_Fox]

Ok... this is really aggravating..

To those of you saying "you havent' seen it! you can't judge it!".. Let me say this..

I'm a comp sci major.. I've been reading about onlive for a looonnggggg time.

and even if possible.. it is a very bad idea.


What happens when you've invested 3 years into the service and paid more in subscription fee's than a gaming computer is worth.. (which a decent gaming computer will last you about 3 years before you really need to upgrade..)

And then *boom* onlive gets "crowded".. just like at&t... it ages.. they don't handle it properly or they just have "an accident".. unlike the computer were you could just spend another 300$ and stick a new graphics card in... your left with nothing in hand. Or for cheaper.. you can get a console and games and probably a very nice hdtv.. ironically and most likely much cheaper than onlive after 3 years of subscription..

And.. look.. I really don't want to start a pissing contest here... But, I have a 16 mbps connection.. It is cable sure.. but, I range from 8-10 mbps most days. I can usually play left 4 dead and online games without too much trouble but, even at these speeds.. it is now flawless

You are also looking at ping which no one here is even mentioning.. Sure fiber optics may be a bit of a game changer..

However, at the moment even youtube lags. I really don't believe someone has found a way to magically defy physics and somehow magically get rid of the time between the users input and the location of where ever the server is..

I mean if someone has a better understanding of this than I do.. let me know..

However, First off... How much computing power is needed for 20,000 + gamers if they all decide to play at once.. and that is more than reasonable for one or two given area's. I don't think many people out there really get it... Crysis is STILL a benchmark. It can STILL not be 100% maxed out for the most part..

Here.. I don't really like tom's hardware but, Benchmark Results: Crysis : ATI Radeon HD 5970 2GB: The World's Fastest Graphics Card the 5970 is a 700$ graphics card! I mean good god!

And for those of you who don't know.. your monitor refreshly roughly 60 times per second.. so once your fps get over 60.. your not going to really see a difference until you get a better monitor.. However, crysis isn't even at 60 fps yet with settings cranked up.

SO.. First off.. How expensive would it have to be to have a computer that could even handle 500 people at once playing this game? Onlive would have to be funded by bill gates, opra, and superman.

Next lets be real here people.. even if the *Could* have that much power set up.. You can't beat physics.

Your command has to travel from your computer all the way to the server, get processed and come back with ALOT of video information.. We are talking about more bandwidth in a few seconds than a single decent quality 4 minute video on youtube needs altogether.

You can spout "you haven't seen it" all day long.. but, Computer Science is my passion. I am an enthusiast. The kind of power and bandwidth this thing would need would be just unimaginable.

If they had *that* kind of computing power..... I can't imagine what they could do with it.. I mean cures for pretty much whatever disease.. cancer, aids, that is a folding farm in itself.

Then again.. I suppose there is no point in arguing here.. it doesn't matter how logical of an argument is presented.... Maybe in another 5 years it will either come out.. or maybe.. just maybe if it hasn't.. we can finally get some more skeptics.

 

[dmodert66]

OK, I tried Onlive out tonight. Only for about a half hour, so I will update this post when I have more time with it...Please read the following...

It's actually not bad. I have only played with it about a half hour or so. TBH, I was shocked at how responsive it was. I have only tried Fear 2 (Demo), but it looked pretty clean. I did notice quite a bit of aliasing (even though it is supposed to be anti-aliased 720P.) There was minor stutter when it saves the game (automatically), but since I have not played Fear 2 before, I'm not sure if this is indicative of the game itself.

I would have been more than happy with the 720P that was provided had I not won a 27" 1080p monitor at E3 (I was using dual 19" viewsonics at 1440x900), so Onlive plays in a (pretty large) window...

There are not many games at this time (I would guess I saw around 10). Hopefully that will be remedied with time.

As to bandwidth, I really can't say what other's experiences will be like, since I am on a 35/35 Fios Connection, but it was really smooth. I can't believe how responsive the controls where. Very fluid using Mouse/Keyboard. I am going to try out Baseball or Basketball with a controller and will edit my post to discuss how this worked out...

To be clear, the only reason I tried it out is because I was sent an email that gave me a year of free service (you still have to buy/rent games, but demos are free). They are calling it...wait for it...it's really forward thinking..."Founding Members Program". I think it is open to all until July 15th, but you have to apply, then wait for an email saying your in...

I can't attest to how it will do once many people get on it (I don't know how many people have been invited to the founders club, but you can sign up for free and if invited, try out the demos to see how it goes...That would all be free...)

If you have tried it, please post your screen res, internet connection speed, and thoughts...

 

[pinesal]

Sorry to dig up this old thread but it find it pretty funny how wrong people were about Onlive.

I have been playing onlive for a few months now and I don't think I will go back to traditional methods. The benefits of onlive are huge.

No monthly fee anymore. Onlive is totally free to use.

No noticeable input lag.

Your game is where ever you are. If I want to play on 60 inch tv. I can, If I want to play on my laptop, I can and it's the same experience on both. No need to even transfer saves.

Now they are coming out with a $10/mo play for unlimited play on selected games (similar to netflix) on top of the normal paypasses for individual games.

 

[shawn1224]

Booo, won't work on my home PC. Says my graphic card doesn't support pixel shaders 2.0.

So much for gaming in the clouds.

 

[Snow_Fox]

I am installing right right now and expecting my antivirus software to go crazy at any moment.

I've got 490$ worth of graphics cards.. so if it meets my expectations its impressive...

My personal expectation is for it to suck like I've been thinking it will the last 4 years i've read about it.




I have a mediocre internet connection. I admit this.. However, I also doubt better ones are incredibly popular.

5 mbps is what we are paying for and it jumps from 2 to 5 sporadically.

I also have yet to see anywhere on onlive's system any remote suggestion for what speed is needed.

Crap service is crap. If you can afford to pay that much for extreme high end connections which all of the "best" experiences from onlive come from you can afford a hardcore gaming machine that you actually own, and will perform much better than 720p.

*Edit* did a bit of research and found this

The hardware used is a custom set up consisting of OnLive's proprietary video compression chip as well as standard PC CPU and GPU chips. For older, or lower-performance, games such as LEGO Batman, multiple instances can be played on each server using virtualization technology. However, high-end games such as Assassin's Creed II will require one GPU per game. Two video streams are created for each game. One (the live stream) is optimised for gameplay and real-world Internet conditions, while the other (the media stream) is a full HD stream that is server-side and used for spectators or for gamers to record Brag Clips of their games.[29]

from here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnLive#PlayPack_flat-rate_plan

This is... well.. unrealistic if anyone believes they are going to do this.

Its not unreasonable when a new game comes out that more than 5 million people are going to try and be playing it at one time.

If that game is lets say Metro 2033 Thats going to require 5 million graphics cards that cost what? like 300$ or more each?

They are a business they are there to make money.. I somehow don't see them being to happy. Especially not with the fact that you need to upgrade video games on a yearly basis to really keep up.. they would have an excess of "slightly" used hardware.

This isn't even taking into account prolonged 24/7 usage shortening lifespans/defect ect ect

If they really do manage to pull this off.. I think its sad that powers not being used to fight aids/hiv or cancer or something..

And we aren't talking max resolution or max quality here.

Anyone who wants to can feel free to settle for sub par graphics.

I will stick to my Dx11 6870 xfire set up. kthxbai.

 

[glockjs]

just tried it and there's too much lag for my taste..10/1 crap connection. i have mixed feelings about it.

there's good and bad tbh. there is a huge benefit of being able to play up to date games without dumping a ton of money into hardware. the problem atm with the service is the limitations with internet connection and the amount of games they currently have.

i fully understand why they charge full price for games but i've been buying games off of steam for dirt cheap for awhile now. plus i can setup my own remote to my desktop to play games. so for me its not all that beneficial. and if i did want to play games via tv and pay full price for games i would just buy an xbox(their hardware is $99...that's half the price of a new xbox)

beyond everything i think the biggest plus of it all and the biggest selling point for me would be......ZERO CHEATING :O which is why i will keep track of this service

i think the concept is there and it is the future i just think they arrived a bit early.