OnLive: Could one console rule them all?

[PR_GMR]

Announced at GDC: OnLive, a new on-demand virtual console gaming serviceYou'll be able to play any game from any PC or Console over the internet streamed to your TV/PC/MAC. No need to upgrade hardware ever again. No need to spend time downloading/installing. The game resides on their servers. All you will do is pick up and play. Sounds fascinating to me.. could be a hit if they can make it work without glitches.

[LawBeefaroni]

No thanks. It's bad enough when connectivity problems make multiplayer impossible. I would hate to be stuck with no gaming at all. I like content that resides locally.

Although I do see it as a possible way to get access to platform exclusive titles.

[Effidian]

Standard definition television for 1.5mbps, which is probably 640x480. Most likely they'll be playing the game at a higher resolution, and then encoding down, but the quality will still be bad compared to a game running locally running at 1600x1200. Even 720p will be worse, and that'll require 5mbps.

Neat technology though. That's a lot of hardware required on the server side, I can't imagine they can play more than a couple games per motherboard at a time. Of course, I suppose that depends on the game.

[hepcat]

So THAT'S where the Phantom Game Console went....

[LawBeefaroni]

That is a ton of overhead if they return the game as streaming video. Has to be through a CDN.

[Crawley]

It looks like the pricing model they want for this is a subscription fee to the service and then on top of that you purchase/rent the games.

I can see the purchase of games being problematic. As you don't have a physical copy of the game if the service goes under or they lose the license to distribute a game you're out that money. Amazon's UnBox (movie purchases & rentals via download) has a similar issue where people have purchased movies only to find out months later when they go to watch them that Amazon no longer holds the license to the movie. They refund your purchase but that pretty much bites.

I'm interested in the idea as it should solve a lot of compatibility and upgrade problems but I'm not so hot on the pricing model for something like this.

[Dan_Theman]

Considering more and more locations are looking at bandwidth/month charges from ISP's, I wonder what kind of hidden costs this would entail for a heavy-usage gamer on top of the subscription fee & game purchases. It's still a neat idea, though.

[Jeff V]

So THAT'S where the Phantom Game Console went....

I still have my Phantom t-shirt and it still glows in the dark.

[ScaryMike]

Video demo: http://i.gizmodo.com/5183416/onlive-dem ... d-graphics" target="_blank

[Mr. Sparkle]

Public beta sign up.

It seems too good to be true, but I'll give it a shot... don't known if my DSL connection is fast enough though. The graphics quality they showed Crysis streaming onto a no GPU machine was unreal. My brand new rig isn't that smooth.

[Kyosho]

Wow, okay, so I watched that entire video, and I went from being very skeptical to being quite hopeful. This is one of the things people have been fantasizing about for years, and the idea that it could be here this soon is mindboggling. However, they said there wasn't much lag between control input and and on-screen response. Well, I saw some. I was very closely watching the second guy's hand movements. Hopefully that's just a beta issue.

[Rowdy]

Neat technology, but why would any gamer want this? Suddenly you don't own anything - you don't have the games you pay for, and you don't even have the hardware to play them. Any games you buy and subscription fees you pay to play are simply data - data that you have zero control over, because it lives on a server. If that server goes away, so does all the content / play time you paid for. Also, under this scheme you have to pay for fast connectivity; there's no such thing as playing offline. Why would I want to be forced to pay for a 5 MB per sec internet connection so that I can play a single player game with all the graphical bells and whistles?

I would MUCH rather my money goes into physical hardware that I own, and physical game media that I own (or at least data that resides on MY hard drive) than simply renting time and content on someone's server. To me it's very similar to renting an apartment vs. paying the same amount on a mortgage - at least I have something to show for it when I'm done.

[ScaryMike]

Neat technology, but why would any gamer want this? (Snip...)

Because keeping your computer on the bleeding edge of technology is very expensive.
Because constantly updating drivers can turn into a nightmare.
Because who among us hasn't spent more time trying to get a game to run than playing the actual game on occasion?
Because you could play a high game on your laptop or old computer that couldn't normally dream of playing a high end game.

[Rowdy]

Neat technology, but why would any gamer want this? (Snip...)

Because keeping your computer on the bleeding edge of technology is very expensive.
Because constantly updating drivers can turn into a nightmare.
Because who among us hasn't spent more time trying to get a game to run than playing the actual game on occasion?
Because you could play a high game on your laptop or old computer that couldn't normally dream of playing a high end game.

Who needs a computer on the bleeding edge of technology? I spent $1500 on a machine 2 years ago - a dual core box with 2 GB of mem and a 8800GT video card. I can play Crysis at high level graphics, and everything else, to date. How much do you think 2 years of subscription payments plus game 'purchases' and 'rentals' on this service will come up to? I don't think you're saving what you think you are. Plus - I have a computer I can use for other purposes, not just a dedicated game terminal. 2 years of paying for OnLive gets me... squat, except the time spent playing those games.

I haven't updated a driver in a year, this is frequently trotted out by console gamers as a huge problem, but it rarely is. Yes, occasionally drivers go bad. I'll concede the overriding point, that there's no maintenance of this system. Sure. But that's because you don't own any of the system.

The only games we spend time trying to get running are OLD games. Good luck getting a 5 year old game on OnLive. Do you think that the publishers will be interested in having MOO2, HoMM3 or X-Com on this service?

My biggest problem, as I said, is that with this scheme you're paying for pure 'hours of video gaming'. It's like an arcade. Plug money in, play for a while. I prefer to pay the same amount of money (or even a bit more) and have games that I can trade, resell, collect, give away, use for coasters, etc. and also have a machine that's capable of doing multi-media, encoding video and audio files, playing games, selling, trading, tinkering with (cause honestly that's part of the hobby, isn't it?), etc.

[ScaryMike]

Who needs a computer on the bleeding edge of technology? I spent $1500 on a machine 2 years ago - a dual core box with 2 GB of mem and a 8800GT video card. I can play Crysis at high level graphics, and everything else, to date. How much do you think 2 years of subscription payments plus game 'purchases' and 'rentals' on this service will come up to? I don't think you're saving what you think you are. (Snip....)

I don't think there is nearly enough info to compare the two when it comes to expense. If the price of a subscription + games is equal to the price of maintaining a gaming machine + games, then they clearly have a problem with their business model.

Anyhow, I'm not saying your argument is invalid. You make plenty of points that I agree with. However, I still think there are plenty of people who will be interested in this type of cloud computer gaming if they can pull it off. They will be interested in it for the very reasons I stated. To top it off, I do believe that this will be the future of computing in general. Although its probably a lot further out than some would like to believe.

[Mr. Sparkle]

I think it's likely to be a tremendous disappointment, but it would certainly be cool if it worked.

As for why anybody would want it... I have a new PC I just built for 2K and a 360 I bought a few years ago, and I still don't even have access to all the games I would like to be able to play. But I also don't really feel like owning a Wii and a PS3 just for the occasional game I might want to get that's exclusive to the platform, but I know a lot of people who do that short of thing. Why would I not want to be able to play any game on any platform anywhere?

Personally I think I have entirely too much crap... I have tons of games and dvds that I don't watch or play anymore and have been too lazy to trade or sell. I would gladly go to a system where I paid a subscription for unlimited access to all movies, music, books, and games... with extra money if I wanted to own anything permanently... as long as they could be streamed seamlessly to low end hardware. I'd be happy to trade in most of my shelfs of all that crap for it.

Now, OnLive isn't necessarily going to offer a "unlimited use" subscription... but I buy all my PC games from the online stores anyway, so I still be interested in it even so... assuming the performance is good... which I still doubt.

[The Preacher]

The lack of offline gaming is troublesome in their model (imho). The joy of Steam, as an example, is that I buy the game and can run it offline but update it online. Is there room for yet another platform...?

[ScaryMike]

The lack of offline gaming is troublesome in their model (imho). The joy of Steam, as an example, is that I buy the game and can run it offline but update it online. Is there room for yet another platform...?

Well, an offline model defeats the whole point of what they are trying to do. Clearly, if offline is a need, then this service wouldn't be for you.

[Effidian]

As for why anybody would want it... I have a new PC I just built for 2K and a 360 I bought a few years ago, and I still don't even have access to all the games I would like to be able to play. But I also don't really feel like owning a Wii and a PS3 just for the occasional game I might want to get that's exclusive to the platform, but I know a lot of people who do that short of thing. Why would I not want to be able to play any game on any platform anywhere?

I think this is for PC games only. Not console games.

In any case, it is interesting. There is no way it will play or look as good as it does on decent PC. Quality should be comparable with a console, and if the PC game is enhanced for the PC, it could end up looking better than the console equivalent. However, you'll need that 5mb pipe for HD and heaven forbid you are sharing your connection with other people in the house, or you want to download something while playing a game.

With their "MicroConsole" solution, it could basically be a "PC" console, and it should be cheap since it is thin client. If someone were to think about buying one of the current consoles, this might be an alternative to those.

I don't understand how they can make money on this. If you look at this as an alternative to a gaming console, I just don't see how it would be cheaper (since their would be a monthly service, plus the required high quality internet connection). It could be cheaper than PC gaming, but we'll have to see what their pricing is. PCs are getting awefully cheap.

Also, no modding and your save games would probably be on their servers. I kinda doubt they'd put a bunch of old games on their service. I'm also curious how they'd handle starting a game. Are *all* their games going to be installed on *all* their servers? Is it going to install when you launch? Is it going to limit the size of their library?

Lots of questions...

[Mr. Sparkle]

I think this is for PC games only. Not console games.

Yeah, I assume the only console games it would offer would be ones with PC ports. However, if their business model is good (and their hardware works), I would expect software developers... who aren't also in the hardware business(i.e. Nintendo)... to jump at the chance to get their games to people this way.

However, it really seems that it can't really take off until we have widespread fiber optic cable laid... which still seems a distant dream.

[pad152]

This is nothing but games running on a server with a widow display (TV) and an interface for your mouse/controller over the net. No one is going to make software for this (no software to sell), so it will have little effect on any consoles. Does any one really want pay to play games?

Although I do see it as a possible way to get access to platform exclusive titles.

I don't think so, the reason they are platform exclusive titles is to sell the hardware, MS and Sony help pay for the software development to make them exclusive. Do you think EA or any other big publisher is going to allow some else to make money off their games and hurt their own software sales?

I see this as a second chance market for second rate titles only or little more than pay to play demos (uck!).

[Smoove_B]

Do you think EA or any other big publisher is going to allow some else to make money off their games and hurt their own software sales?

On the contrary -- they already have support from various game publishers. Because this type of technology keeps the game media out of the hands of Joe Consumer. How do you pirate a game that's never released, only streamed? How much does it cost to give the necessary data to OnLive verses the printing and distribution of hundreds of thousands of DVDs, manuals, boxes, etc...?

The prices for OnLive membership (whether it's per-title or a buffet-style membership) are going to be driven by the licensing costs of the publishers. And being able to bring content to a group of people that normally woudn't be able to run high-end AAA games (Crysis) is going to be a winner for them.

I don't think we (the "hardcore" gaming crowd) are their market.

[Koz]

There was an interesting article on Eurogamer last week on why OnLive can't work from a technical standpoint.

It seems it would have to overcome several networking and hardware limitations in order to play games at anything near what they're proposing. I think some single player games could work, especially lower-end ones, but I can't imagine the lag playing a multiplayer game over this.

[Effidian]

How much does it cost to give the necessary data to OnLive verses the printing and distribution of hundreds of thousands of DVDs, manuals, boxes, etc...?

Digital distribution also doesn't have these costs, but not many AAA titles do digital only. Even several indie titles don't do only digital, because there are still a lot of people that want the box/manual/disk/whatever. (Not me mind you, I've only bought digital for a couple years now.)

There was an interesting article on Eurogamer last week on why OnLive can't work from a technical standpoint.

The encoding piece of it is much simpler than that article makes it out to be, and doesn't require nearly the hardware they say it would. The encoding/decoding also doesn't impact latency at all (which the article mentions it "probably" would). I quit reading after that, so I'm not sure about the rest of it.

[Victoria Raverna]

There was an interesting article on Eurogamer last week on why OnLive can't work from a technical standpoint.

It seems it would have to overcome several networking and hardware limitations in order to play games at anything near what they're proposing. I think some single player games could work, especially lower-end ones, but I can't imagine the lag playing a multiplayer game over this.

If it adds 100 ms lag to multiplayer games over this, it'll still add the same 100 ms lag to single player games. If you can play single player games over it then you can play multiplayer game over it.

It won't be as good as playing games on your own PC or console but it'll be playable. As for the claim of 60 fps, I doubt it'll be possible but you don't need 60 fps to play games. The problem with the processing power of the server CPU and GPU aren't going to be a problem since those getting cheaper every year. In essence this service = you rent a gaming pc or console and put it in a datacenter then stream the display to your client and send data from user input back to the pc or console.

If gamers can get a gaming pc for $1000 then the OnLive company can get it for less than that because they buy in volume and they don't need all components that a gaming pc need to have. They can always get it cheaper than invidual gamers.

The problem is that the compression/encoding part. To capture then compress the HD display at 60 fps will require a very expensive hardware. Good hardware KVM over IP products are expensive and they can't do 60 fps at HD resolution. But maybe those hardware are expensive because of the market volume of the products are small and their target market are mostly enterprise level.

[Victoria Raverna]

The encoding piece of it is much simpler than that article makes it out to be, and doesn't require nearly the hardware they say it would. The encoding/decoding also doesn't impact latency at all (which the article mentions it "probably" would). I quit reading after that, so I'm not sure about the rest of it.

Hmm? That is the hard part. Good Realtime HD encoding is still expensive. HD broadcasting only need one encoder machine for live event. On Demand HD Digital broadcasting can preencode the movies. For OnLive to work, they need one encoder for each client because non of their material can be preencoded. HD broadcasting also don't need 60 fps.

To encode a 720p at 60 fps you need to compress 160 MBytes of data per second into 5 Mbps stream (about 0.6 Mbytes per second) or around 267:1 ratio in real time. You can't do 2 pass encoding, you can't use bidirectional compression algorithm (you can if you add some lag so you have more than one frame to compress per packet). It is not as simpler as you think it is.

[Effidian]

Hmm? That is the hard part. Good Realtime HD encoding is still expensive. HD broadcasting only need one encoder machine for live event. On Demand HD Digital broadcasting can preencode the movies. For OnLive to work, they need one encoder for each client because non of their material can be preencoded. HD broadcasting also don't need 60 fps.

To encode a 720p at 60 fps you need to compress 160 MBytes of data per second into 5 Mbps stream (about 0.6 Mbytes per second) or around 267:1 ratio in real time. You can't do 2 pass encoding, you can't use bidirectional compression algorithm (you can if you add some lag so you have more than one frame to compress per packet). It is not as simpler as you think it is.

You can still use p-frames (with motion compensation), you just can't use b-frames. I'm sure you can get any number of off the shelf encoders that will encode 720p faster than real time on an average machine (I'm pretty sure ffmpeg will go faster than real-time on it). An encoder that a company has been optimizing for 7 years will be much faster.

Now, I do agree that something that they are doing with encoding is difficult, just not what was presented in that article. With so little latency, they can't really handle large frames (frames that take over a single frame period to transmit). Because sending a large frame requires buffering on the client, and with the latency numbers I've heard, they must have almost no buffer on the client.

[rhinohelix]

Terminal Services for Games™? Sounds great in theory but in practice I would think not so much. Perhaps there is an audience for this, though. Have lived through a hurricane recently with no net for a week+ at home, I can state categorically that I am not that audience.

[Crawley]

It sounds like whatever technology they are using works although with compression artifacts and hitching effects seen in BioShock. Here's an hands-on article from Shacknews: http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=1090" target="_blank

So there is something to it but it doesn't sound like its at the point where its going to be a seamless gaming experience as if you had the actual disc and a great computer.

There's also a 2 part interview on Joystiq with the OnLive founder which has some good nuggets of information.

Part 1 - http://www.joystiq.com/2009/04/01/gdc09 ... -to-be-sk/" target="_blank
Part 2 - http://www.joystiq.com/2009/04/02/gdc09 ... continued/" target="_blank

Its left me less skeptical of the product but its one of those things I'll want to see for myself.

[Kyosho]

Bump. So, I decided to check and see how Onlive is doing after all this time. This video is from November, but still, I think it's worth posting for anyone here who hasn't seen it. It has a lot more information than the older video from GDC. Especially about the technical aspects and things. You get to see a lot more gameplay too. And it's running on iPhones now! Insanity.

[cicobuff]

Service like these relies on timeshare of the central servers to be profitable/feasible as we don't expect every subscriber to be backed by a piece of hardware dedicated to him only idling away. So what happens when a majorly hyped title gets released? E.g. Monster Hunter equivalent for Psp? Everyones gets online and major failure occurs.

[Isgrimnur]

Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye!

OnLive said today it will wind down its operations and sell select cloud gaming assets to Sony’s game division. This brings to a close one of the boldest attempts to disrupt the traditional video game business and deliver high-end games to just about any computing device.

Terms of the deal weren’t disclosed. Sony Computer Entertainment will now hold a considerable amount of intellectual property in cloud gaming. It purchased the Gaikai game streaming service in 2012 for $380 million, and it used that to launch its PlayStation Now cloud gaming service, which streams games from data centers to PlayStation consoles. It enables players to play older games such as God of War: Ascension, a PlayStation 3 game, on newer consoles such as the PlayStation 4.
...
OnLive had its own subscription and game rental services directly to consumers. Those users will continue to have access to OnLive’s services until April 30, including the OnLive Game Service, OnLive Desktop and SL Go (Second Life). After today, however, subscribers will no longer receive charges for these services. Those whose subscriptions renewed on or after March 28 will receive refunds. Following the termination of the company’s services and related products, OnLive will engage in an orderly wind-down of the company and cease operations.