Something went wrong. Try again later

Giant Bomb News

230 Comments

What If Your Game Console Was Just A Video Stream?

What if your game machine was just a video display box hooked up to the Internet? OnLive thinks that very concept will change the way we play.

Pretty interesting story over on VentureBeat tonight that takes a look at OnLive, a new attempt at gaming via cloud computing via Steve Perlman, the guy who brought you WebTV. OnLive will be showing off its device at this year's Game Developers Conference.

The core concept of OnLive is really pretty simple when you break it down. What if you take all the computing power out of your gaming console and put it into a huge server farm somewhere else on the Internet? Then, instead of having your controller directly control your local game machine, your inputs are sent over the Internet to this magic cloud of computers, which sends back a low-latency video stream of the action. If it works, then suddenly things like CPUs and graphics hardware becomes kind of meaningless at the consumer level. In fact, so do retail versions of games, since you'd ostensibly be signing up for a service and/or buying your games directly from the OnLive device.

Speaking of which, here's a shot (or at least a mock-up) of said device, courtesy of VentureBeat:

No Caption Provided
Tiny, right? Apparently it's all made possible via proprietary compression algorithms that get latency down to around 80ms--which if you've played enough PC shooters in your time, you'll know that that's a pretty playable ping. But is it enough? Really, that's only one of the questions I'm left with after reading the article.

Whether you know it or not, a lot of games out there rely on pretty specific timing. While you could certainly play Street Fighter IV over the Internet, the game's top players are so busy counting each individual frame that even that 80ms is going to add up. And would games like Rock Band work properly with that sort of latency? It kind of reminds me of the time I tried to hook my Neo Geo up to my Sony AirBoard--that's a wireless TV that receives signal from a base station. If you weren't paying attention, the games were pretty much playable, but the moment you really started focusing on the action, it was an unsatisfying mess. Of course, for games with big online components, like first-person shooters and other action games, players are already used to some sort of latency, and games are built to predict your actions just enough to keep things running smoothly.

But the old QuakeWorld model of guessing where you're going to be next doesn't seem like something I'd want to apply to every single game ever made. I have to imagine that the games running on the service would have to be "optimized" to work properly. So, as you've probably already expected, color me skeptical. I can't help but think something is snake oil the minute people start talking about "the cloud." It screams "check it out, we shouted a bunch of buzzwords and someone gave us millions of dollars!" But most crazy, futuristic devices start out sounding too good to be true. So color me totally interested in seeing this thing first-hand. Apparently 16 games will be running from the GDC show floor later this week.
Jeff Gerstmann on Google+

230 Comments

Avatar image for ishotmrburns
ishotmrburns

291

Forum Posts

36

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

Edited By ishotmrburns
Al3xand3r said:
"Think Guitar Hero on this thing (I don't even play that, but it's an awesome example). Even a mere milisecond delay, which will be impossible to achieve in practice, would fuck your game up in a big way."
You do realize what a millisecond is, right? 'Cause one thousandth of second ain't gonna fuck your game up.
Avatar image for djjoejoe
DJJoeJoe

1433

Forum Posts

508

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 19

Edited By DJJoeJoe

Even with 80ms latency levels you'd still notice it a lot, because normal games have your render the game and your position and aiming on your computer so your movement and aiming is obviously 1:1 perfect all the time, unless you CPU chugs etc. With your display being completely over the net, you're not aiming 1:1 but rather what you see and where you are aiming is delayed visually, which is very bad. This basically cuts the speed of your mouse out completely, and now you're on even ground with everyone else at a slow latency level of aiming. This concept of gaming on the net was talked about a while ago with an example of an MMO with above Crysis level graphics being playable over the exact same method.


Like I said earlier, when net speeds become WAY faster then 80ms you'll start seeing REAL games on a system like this. Before then though, no developer is gunna take a serious game onto this service and not many gamers are going to use it like you'd expect it to. Best case senerio there is 'some' genres covered that don't really rely on 1:1 aim such as...   hrm can't think of any as every game would be annoying with slight aim lag.
Avatar image for harrysound
HarrySound

299

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By HarrySound

This has to be impossible.
Surely there is no way you can get frames through the net instantly.
Don't fancy the bandwidth bill either after playing  mass effect for the 4th time

Avatar image for conojo
conojo

156

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By conojo

oh hey look it's the phantom

Avatar image for deactivated-5c468a9482ba9
deactivated-5c468a9482ba9

215

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Sounds like this might be pretty damn rad. They need to get Capcom, SEGA, and Square though. Or at least some Japanese companies.

Avatar image for pet_assassin
Pet_Assassin

94

Forum Posts

41

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By Pet_Assassin

"Time to add OnLive to the "Consoles" page," he added hopefully.

Avatar image for rbolduc625
RBolduc625

168

Forum Posts

7607

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 1

Edited By RBolduc625

I hate to say it. But this is what I had in mind for the next gen of gaming. i was just hoping MS and Sony would've done it first.

Avatar image for icoangel
icoangel

176

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By icoangel

This seems like a cool idea but since i am  in Australia and have a download cap it would not work very well.

Avatar image for al3xand3r
Al3xand3r

7912

Forum Posts

3

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Al3xand3r

Seen articles about it in the past. But I don't think it will ever become standard. Maybe a kind of Steam-like service for people with weaker systems, but not an actual standardised way of doing things. That would mean a company making games would either thave to spend money to have this third party offer their cloud computing to their customers, or spend money to make a service like it for themselves, which would perhaps make it require a MMORPG-like overhead on a LARGER scale, and have to pass the cost to the consumer in some way because of that, probably with the use of subscriptions. It's an alternative, not a thing to become standard. But I could see it used effectively for some new MMORPG that would offer better visuals than any system could handle for example, only made psossible thanks to this cloud computing tech.

Edit: Here's another reason why it wouldn't work in practice. Think Guitar Hero on this thing (I don't even play that, but it's an awesome example). Even a mere milisecond delay, which will be impossible to achieve in practice, would fuck your game up in a big way. It won't catch on as anything but a service for a very particular audience, one that surprisingly enough has access to uber connections, particular game tastes, yet doesn't have the hardware for them and on top of that is willing to pay subscriptions. Who fits that description?

Avatar image for ilsantomembro
ilsantomembro

2

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By ilsantomembro

Reminde me of when purchsed Spore from EA online, and i had to pay an extra $5 just to allow myself to download the game beyond the 6 months of the purchase date, but only up to 3 years. And i can only download "my" game up to three times?  They're essentially saying "this game is not owned by you." Yet, if i would not been too lazy to drive to Fry's or Gamestop, i woulda had payed less, and been able to do what i pleased with the product. Even used it for a coaster for the rest of my years, if i wished to do so.

But that does not mean this concept isn't worth the effort- Figure the cost of your gaming rig, or your consoles, if this service settles with just a monthly fee of <$20 a month, it's probably well worth the try, assuming there will be games you wish to play over it. Then again, it's all about the games.

Avatar image for djjoejoe
DJJoeJoe

1433

Forum Posts

508

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 19

Edited By DJJoeJoe

Net speeds will increase with time, heck if the states just advances to half the speeds of ANY other nation...  well let's just say america is a tad behind on net connection speeds.

Avatar image for southgrove
Southgrove

360

Forum Posts

71

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By Southgrove

Ping is not the same as input latency though.. so blergh, I say.

Avatar image for duckbutter
Duckbutter

387

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Duckbutter

wait, what? so i can play Crysis at its full graphical potential with this thing? sign me up holmes. us graphic whores can be even more whorier now. but wouldn't this service piss off console companies and retail fucks? this service is gonna get sabotaged to death.

Avatar image for jjor64
JJOR64

19700

Forum Posts

417

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 5

Edited By JJOR64

Very interesting.  I want to hear more about this.

Avatar image for hexogen
hexogen

802

Forum Posts

3477

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 7

Edited By hexogen

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the device has to send the inputs to a server, and then the server has to process those inputs and send what results on screen back to you, wouldn't there be a delay in between when you press a button and when something actually happens on the screen? Assuming the latency is around 80ms as stated in the article, I can't see it working very well. 80ms may not seem like a lot, but I bet it'd be really noticeable when playing any type of action game. While online multiplayer games do have to send data back and forth, the game files are stored locally and everything on screen is processed on your own computer/console, so when you press a button on the controller, the game responds instantly.

Avatar image for lassegp
Lassegp

72

Forum Posts

681

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 4

Edited By Lassegp

I like the idea, but i dont think its gonna work as well as actually having your console next to you. On top of that, if i were to hand over my Xbox to some "guy in the sky" what would be my heating source in my living room?

Avatar image for slantedwindows
slantedwindows

282

Forum Posts

124

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By slantedwindows
Avatar image for johanz
Johanz

250

Forum Posts

566

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Johanz

Nah, count me out. I'd rather pay for a box so that I can play anytime I want, regardless of my internet connection, and I don't get any latency at all. I am connected 24/7, but that doesn't mean that I always will be, or think that this idea is appealing. Physical media, physical games and consoles feel more rewarding than some streaming stuff. It feels good to know what you have and being able to see and feel it at the same time. Don't get me wrong, I love downloadable games, but I would never want my discs to go away and have it all be downloadable or streaming stuff.

Because, when OnLive ceases to live, I will still be able to play on a NES (granted that the hardware hasn't broke), Snes, PS1, PS2, PS3, Xbox 360 and so forth . When Steam dies, will I be able to play those games I have bought? I have no idea. That's really the scary thing, if you are like, that you like to keep your console and your games. And right now, downloable games cost about as much as retail product, if not even more, atleast if you compare towards Steam, and then you get even less control of your copy that you purchased. Many think about the positives about digital distribution, but there is a huge backside to it all. It's all digital, none of it is in your control, if the service dies, so does your games. And you still bought the at the same price as a physical disc.

I think when people start to realize that, thats when stuff like OnLive is going to be sketchy for some people. I know some who totally don't care about keeping their games forever and such, but still, there are people like me. And what happens if OnLive is launched, and it's not a huge success, and still has some subscribers, what happens if they decide to terminate the service? Refunds? Or will your investments be lost forever?

Avatar image for mats
Mats

135

Forum Posts

117

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By Mats
"Apparently it's all made possible via proprietary compression algorithms that get latency down to around 80ms"

How the hell is a compression algorithm going to change latency since this factor mainly is dependent upon the network infrastructrure, distance (re: laws of physics) (and part routing/network protocols) and not bandwith?
Avatar image for joeltgm
JoelTGM

5784

Forum Posts

1760

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 1

Edited By JoelTGM

Sounds cool as long as there is no input delay.

I like the idea of never having to upgrade hardware.  They would upgrade whenever possible, so you'd always have access to the best hardware on the market.

Avatar image for freedo
freedo

134

Forum Posts

6

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 8

Edited By freedo

I agree with Wolverine. I'd much rather download the game than have to rely on my fragile internet connection to play games. Besides, I don't like this "sign up for a subscription based service and pay for a stream of a game" instead of just going on the Playstation Store and paying 10 bucks to have Flower on my ps3 at all times. It seems like kind of a ripoff to pay for just streaming a game and a subscription fee. But still, I'm glad things like this and Steam exist. It gets people thinking in differently.

Avatar image for deactivated-5a1a3d3c6820c
deactivated-5a1a3d3c6820c

3235

Forum Posts

37

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Give it 5-10 years and I guarantee something along these lines will be a much more realised product.

Avatar image for gunslingernz
gunslingerNZ

2010

Forum Posts

300

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By gunslingerNZ

I'd always prefer to own the content myself rather than permanent "rental". The problems with latency and the fact that you won't get internet everywhere you go are problems too. I do like the idea of having a super small device that plays all my games though...

Avatar image for mike
mike

18011

Forum Posts

23067

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -1

User Lists: 6

Edited By mike
Shini4444 said:
"I don't know. I'm a big fan of putting a box on a shelf. That's why I don't really like the idea of games going fully downloadable."
It's going that way, and probably faster than you think.  The days of physical media are numbered.
Avatar image for ninjahunter
NinjaHunter

1005

Forum Posts

138

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

Edited By NinjaHunter

Forget SkyNet, "cloud" will kill us all!

Avatar image for teptom
teptom

2074

Forum Posts

9175

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 7

Edited By teptom

I don't know. I'm a big fan of putting a box on a shelf. That's why I don't really like the idea of games going fully downloadable.

Avatar image for zombiepie
ZombiePie

9246

Forum Posts

94844

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 19

Edited By ZombiePie  Staff

The concept is sound, but there is so much room for failure with this that I think I'll just wait to see how this turns out.

Avatar image for wolverine
Wolverine

4642

Forum Posts

3776

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By Wolverine

I like the concept of it but dude what if the internet is down? I would personally rather just have a huge hard drive and download games than have to constantly stream them from the "cloud".

Avatar image for soul101
soul101

120

Forum Posts

45

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By soul101

I don't like it sir....nope, I don't.

Avatar image for jeff
jeff

6357

Forum Posts

107208

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 20

Edited By jeff
Pretty interesting story over on VentureBeat tonight that takes a look at OnLive, a new attempt at gaming via cloud computing via Steve Perlman, the guy who brought you WebTV. OnLive will be showing off its device at this year's Game Developers Conference.

The core concept of OnLive is really pretty simple when you break it down. What if you take all the computing power out of your gaming console and put it into a huge server farm somewhere else on the Internet? Then, instead of having your controller directly control your local game machine, your inputs are sent over the Internet to this magic cloud of computers, which sends back a low-latency video stream of the action. If it works, then suddenly things like CPUs and graphics hardware becomes kind of meaningless at the consumer level. In fact, so do retail versions of games, since you'd ostensibly be signing up for a service and/or buying your games directly from the OnLive device.

Speaking of which, here's a shot (or at least a mock-up) of said device, courtesy of VentureBeat:

No Caption Provided
Tiny, right? Apparently it's all made possible via proprietary compression algorithms that get latency down to around 80ms--which if you've played enough PC shooters in your time, you'll know that that's a pretty playable ping. But is it enough? Really, that's only one of the questions I'm left with after reading the article.

Whether you know it or not, a lot of games out there rely on pretty specific timing. While you could certainly play Street Fighter IV over the Internet, the game's top players are so busy counting each individual frame that even that 80ms is going to add up. And would games like Rock Band work properly with that sort of latency? It kind of reminds me of the time I tried to hook my Neo Geo up to my Sony AirBoard--that's a wireless TV that receives signal from a base station. If you weren't paying attention, the games were pretty much playable, but the moment you really started focusing on the action, it was an unsatisfying mess. Of course, for games with big online components, like first-person shooters and other action games, players are already used to some sort of latency, and games are built to predict your actions just enough to keep things running smoothly.

But the old QuakeWorld model of guessing where you're going to be next doesn't seem like something I'd want to apply to every single game ever made. I have to imagine that the games running on the service would have to be "optimized" to work properly. So, as you've probably already expected, color me skeptical. I can't help but think something is snake oil the minute people start talking about "the cloud." It screams "check it out, we shouted a bunch of buzzwords and someone gave us millions of dollars!" But most crazy, futuristic devices start out sounding too good to be true. So color me totally interested in seeing this thing first-hand. Apparently 16 games will be running from the GDC show floor later this week.