OnLive Video Review June 2010

Except each server runs multiple instances of each game, so multiple users run the games using one set of hardware. At least that's who Steve Pearlman explained it in a presentation...if I even understood it correctly. It's all a bit confusing as it is new technology, and they aren't really divulging any specific details as to how it works or is set up.

Also they aren't simply setting up gaming rigs with all these games installed and letting you control them remotely. That's how they originally started, iirc, but had to change their system for it to work properly. "

" @Seppli:  Well, I just think if it existed (and it did, in the past, in forms such as Sega's amazing Model 3 arcade hardware) it would be best appreciated with local rendering (not internet streaming).  Such arcade machines made money by giving people a minute or two of access for a dollar, not a full day for $10.  I wish there were more experiences like that today too.  The arcade always used to show off what games would look like on our consoles and PCs 5 or 10 years in the future.  It's not something that would necessarily be limited to streaming internet cloud gaming services. "

With the way OnLive is now when someone is playing a game they are using 1 whole GPU and 1 whole CPU and 1 whole mobo.  If cloud services ever really did take off there might be the R&D dollars to invest in mainframes or super computers that would have many CPUs and GPUs on one motherboard that could allocate resources more efficiently.

While there isn't massive lag, you can notice hiccups that seem to be quite frequent. It still runs way more smoothly than I thought it would, however I'm not convinced that the average level of internet connection speed is ready for it.
 
There is more than likely a market for it, but I think they brought this out too soon. It looks like the tech on their end is ready, but tech on the consumer side I fear isn't. I have a feeling a lot of people will be disappointed when they get it and find out their connection isn't capable of HD streaming either because of router bandwidth choking or plainly slow speeds from the provider. 

You are incorrect in your assumption, as I've said. They are virtualizing everything with multiple instances of games running on one set of hardware. Check the video at  http://tv.seas.columbia.edu/videos/545/60/79 and the explanation starts at 27:30.

lol everyone who disagrees with me is a liar!
 
We've brought proof at the very least in the form of testimony a outside party with intimate knowledge, all you have given is your word, and far as I can tell your full of shit.

@Saieno said:

You are incorrect in your assumption, as I've said. They are virtualizing everything with multiple instances of games running on one set of hardware. Check the video at  http://tv.seas.columbia.edu/videos/545/60/79 and the explanation starts at 27:30.

No, I am correct, it's that the OnLive people are liars themselves.  The things they claim in that video aren't possible.  They claimed to have created a video compressor that adds no latency, is extremely high quality, but costs $2 per processor.  The quality ended up being poor.  They also claimed that every PC game would be running at highest detail settings, and that hasn't happened.  Sure they can virtualize an instance of a game like World of Goo, but the hardware doesn't exist to virtualize a game like Lego Harry Potter or Red Faction Guerrilla or Crysis Warhead.  Stop assuming you understand how this technology works better than I do. "

" @Diamond said:

@Saieno said:

You are incorrect in your assumption, as I've said. They are virtualizing everything with multiple instances of games running on one set of hardware. Check the video at  http://tv.seas.columbia.edu/videos/545/60/79 and the explanation starts at 27:30.

No, I am correct, it's that the OnLive people are liars themselves.  The things they claim in that video aren't possible.  They claimed to have created a video compressor that adds no latency, is extremely high quality, but costs $2 per processor.  The quality ended up being poor.  They also claimed that every PC game would be running at highest detail settings, and that hasn't happened.  Sure they can virtualize an instance of a game like World of Goo, but the hardware doesn't exist to virtualize a game like Lego Harry Potter or Red Faction Guerrilla or Crysis Warhead.  Stop assuming you understand how this technology works better than I do. "

So by your expert opinion, OnLive can not possibly exist. Hardware and software can't be improved or invented, even though computer technology is the fastest progressing industry in the world. Seriously, you're so full of shit it's dripping from your mouth. They also never claimed every PC game would be running at highest detail settings, only that the demonstration of Crysis they showed was running at maximum settings. I don't pretend to understand how this technology works, I just link to references of where I get my information. You however spout crap like you developed the damn thing, and call the creator of video compression and real-time facial capture technology a fucking liar? HAH "

So is Crysis just a pretty selling point? Of course they never claimed all games would run at max settings, but Red Faction Guerrilla doesn't even look as good as the 360 version. It's not just shadows, there is no dynamic lighting as well. "

thats my suspicion actually. I think latency is optimized more for certain games as well. For example when I played red faction I noticed some lag in response, but nothing debilitating or that got me killed because of slow response. When I played unreal directly after though, response felt 1:1, it was clearly better and I noticed absolutely no lag in response. And being an almost purely competitive game, Unreal, response time would be considered highest priority imo.

Whatever, the truth is in front of your eyes and anyone that understands technology knows OnLive doesn't have completely original CPUs, GPUs, and operating systems capable of running multiple instances of demanding PC games, even running on as shitty graphics levels as OnLive achieves.  I've described how it works in great detail, and I wasn't skirting answering questions like the PR bullshit spouted by the OnLive rep in that video.  You want to believe no company ever lies.  Go ahead.
 
Maybe OnLive will sell some of those magical processors sometime in the future.  People can have 10x SLi then and just add CPUs to their motherboards if they ever need any more power.

LMFAO OnLive rep. Holy shit your clueless. Also I'm looking forward to your proof that I said 'no company ever lies'
 
Seems you don't know the differences between specialized hardware and general purpose hardware either. "It has to run on a PC type gaming rig because that's what my games run on! And nothing is different outside my perception of reality!"
 
'Whatever', the cry of the beaten and fallen. I accept your concession.

" Whatever, the truth is in front of your eyes and anyone that understands technology knows OnLive doesn't have completely original CPUs, GPUs, and operating systems capable of running multiple instances of demanding PC games, even running on as shitty graphics levels as OnLive achieves.  I've described how it works in great detail, and I wasn't skirting answering questions like the PR bullshit spouted by the OnLive rep in that video.  You want to believe no company ever lies.  Go ahead.  Maybe OnLive will sell some of those magical processors sometime in the future.  People can have 10x SLi then and just add CPUs to their motherboards if they ever need any more power. "

I mean this guy must be a genius, because the entire professional computer and video game industry believes that hes doing this the way he says when its all lies! Quite possibly the biggest scam and cover up since the moon landing or when the lizard aliens replaced George Bush senior with a clone loyal to only them. You should work on exposing him Diamond because if he is lying, hes breaking several federal laws and you'll be famous. Hes probably got an escape plan to get to an island in international waters in minutes already set up.

" @Dionysus187:@Saieno: Wow, you two really are offensive nitwits.  DENY DENY DENY, that's all you need to 'win' an internet argument.  Good job, I award you victory by attrition. "

YET I can't see a who lot of articles saying their completely full of shit. At most I found some that says they are just using a modified version of h264, since competitors (such as Gaikai) have mentioned thats what they use.
 
But I'm sure Gaikai and David Perry are in on it too.

lol i'm kind of baffled, do you think people don't know the quality is lower than playing it directly on your rig? Not like we didn't say that several times. Do you think because quality is lower you can't possibly imagine someone who would want to use the service? i mean I can imagine why a lot of people wouldn't care about not needing new/good hardware, on demand gaming or other features it provides. I can also grasp why a lot of people WOULD want those features at the expense of some quality compared to playing it on a gaming rig.
 
Graphics aren't everything bud.

Ok, and? so? what? therefore? thanks for proving a point people have already conceded I guess....

" @Dionysus187: Gaikai is a separate service, but I'm sure they'll both fight for their common cause too.
 
As far as the claims of compression quality and some of my other assertions, it's proven wrong by the quality of the service itself.  Some you actually have to understand the technology employed.  Don't worry about replying to me about this, I'm just trying to inform the parts of the community that actually are relevant. "

 " Now, when talking about playing a game and watching someone else play, you need to keep in mind that OnLive has a live stream and a media stream. The live stream is what you play on, and is MUCH high quality than the media stream. The Media stream is what gets funneled through the Arena windows, and is used as the Broadcast and Brag Clips. These are much blurrier and lower quality than the live stream. So, of course the Arena screenshots will look much lower quality, because it's just meant to be looked at and not played. When you're actually playing the game, it is much sharper and clearer, though not enough for it to be 'HD" for you."

 

Very nice comparison. Noticed on your JC2 screenshot Saieno that there's a fence being rendered in the back the PC once doesn't have. Also I don't know if its settings or just lower quality/blur but the OnLIve pic Saieno took also seems to have more of anti-aliasing effect on it. Evident by looking at the waves in the water and the leaves on the tree.

I don't really know what the settings are on the PC screenshot, as it was Diamonds screenshot and not mine. It may just not have anti-aliasing on, because the settings look maxed out compared to the demo on my PC. I also don't know if the fence was destroied before the image was taken or not, just a lot of variables to keep in mind. Also, OnLive doesn't look that clear in motion, but you certainly can't differentiate between the two when seeing them side by side in screenshots (Just Cause 2 in this instance).

What an unfair comparison. Cripple the PC by turning off AA and in the OnLive screenshots edges and jaggies are blurred by the compression. 
 
You really need to see it in motion to see how bad it looks.

" What an unfair comparison. Cripple the PC by turning off AA and in the OnLive screenshots edges and jaggies are blurred by the compression.   You really need to see it in motion to see how bad it looks. "

If you don't like the PC screenshots blame Diamond, he provided them.
 
People are impossible. Post youtube videos in the highest quality they can provide and you blame youtube compression. Post screenshots, using a detractors PC gameplay screenshots in the comparison against OnLive gameplay (not spectator) screenshots and make false accusations that the PC screenshots were some how doctored in favor of OnLive even though, I reiterate, they were provided by a third OPPOSING party.
 
You people are aware that in comparisons in the past like 360 vs PS3 or PC vs 360 they didn't use some special compressor JUST for these comparisons on sites like gametrailers and IGN right?

" @Dionysus187:  Not my screenshots, it was other peoples' comparisons.  But yea, those PC shots weren't anywhere near max settings.  I'm sorry, but it's you and Saieno who are impossible.  You create accounts to spam nothing but OnLive bullshit for days on end.  Can't wait until your marketing contracts run out.  Anyways, making the images smaller is deceptive because you can't see the compression if the image is very small (you can't see the details at all that way).  Sitting in one spot without moving the camera around on OnLive is deceptive because that's not how the games will actually look when you play them.  Finally, using compression when comparing 360, PS3, PC or any other systems is acceptable because you're comparing apples to apples.  When comparing OnLive to other platforms you're only bringing the other platforms down to OnLive's level (to an extent).  Anyways, I wouldn't expect you plants to understand this.  Continue on with both of you bumping every pro-OnLive thread you create every 12 hours like your employer is paying you to. "

You want to compare OnLive to maximum PC settings on every game? I don't see how that would be some how more accurate considering most people can't afford rigs or simply don't have that can run these games on maximum settings with a smooth gameplay experience. When cars are compared they stay within the same class and/or price range, they don't compare a Civic to the best factory made car they can find and start lambasting the Civic for its massive shortcomings while ignoring thngs like price and availability. 
 
Noticed you didn't concede to rigging your own post by using the openly less quality spectator option to make a comparison. Either you don't actually know what your talking about when you think you do or are just copy/pasting arguments from another source.
 
So your complaint is basically that they make you pay a small fee, you don't own a physical copy of the game, and that the games aren't running on max settings at all times, which a large majority of people can't do anyway?
 
Benefit of the doubt, I think people here are playing on varying internet connection speeds and since OnLive adjusts to speeds your obviously going to get mixed results, even if two people supposedly use the same quality internet in different locations. My suspicion though is that this threatens peoples over attachment to their 'omg awesome rigs' and this is the beginning of a path that will make that kind of obsession almost completely useless even just inside the scope of maximizing your entertainment.
 
PS. I find it increasingly funny you keep accusing me for working with OnLive. A simple google search will prove I've been using this username across the internet well before OnLive was even heard of. if you don't believe me feel free to use any of the personal messaging services on the results you find. I should get some sort of notification unless those are off for some reason. Of course this could all be part of some 'deep cover' plan, using the username for years in other locations, waiting for the day i can use it to be a corporate shill for onlive on a single thread on a single message board.

Good review. I have to admit I've started doing a lot of research on the OnLive service and it's all coming back looking quite good. 
Maybe once the UK test station in Wales, UK is open to the public I'll try it out. 
I just want them to keep that 1-year free membership offer open to other countries around the world and not just unfairly in the US only.

And I've already said over and over again, screenshots of OnLive are pointless as the game doesn't look like that in motion.

And comparing PC to 360/PS3 is apples to apples? Are you kidding me? Consoles are constrained to a specific quality settings and resolution, just like OnLive. Comparing anything besides a PC to a PC is one-sided for the PC.

So your complaint is basically that they make you pay a small fee, you don't own a physical copy of the game, and that the games aren't running on max settings at all times, which a large majority of people can't do anyway?

Your compression argument is just ignorant as all hell. If you compare a 360 and PS3, if there is a REASON to compare them, one of them will look better than the other when actually playing them. This also holds true when comparing OnLive to a PC game. Therefore when you compress 2 things, one looking better than the other, the 'better' one, by your logic will be brought down 'closer' to the one that supposedly doesn't look as good. Your saying that any video comparison between 2 differently performing platforms is inherently flawed. This might be true, but that means ps3/pc/360 comparisons are EQUALLY as flawed as comparing things to onlive. The fact that they use compression somewhere in the line means nothing, the comparisons are of the end results.

Its all okay or not of it is. Get a clue.
 
Also real mature trying to take the wind out of my sails by saying don't reply with bull shit. "Aww man now I can't reply because I was just gonna spew bullshit now its not fun anymore." Fucking moron.
 
Don't reply with anything that contradicts me because I'm a big fancy smart man and your dumb! that's what you sound like.

Lol what?  Haven't you read what I've written?  It's the input latency, the video compression, the graphics settings, the consumer-unfriendly licensing, the bandwidth usage, the online-only gaming, the overly expensive game prices, and the yearly fees. "

I still think they are throttling games dependent on their popularity, which would really suck if you liked playing a game that was relatively unpopular in the Onlive service. New games probably get priority automatically since people would be looking at them. might even have some dynamic system where it a game is really peaking it starts taking resources from other games being played, starting from the 'bottom' What also worries me if they ever decide to have some sort of premium package charging more, people can basically pay more to take resources from people on a lower sub or not paying a sub at all and just playing demos.

real mature    Fucking moron.

No I'm not missing the point, your refusing to be open to the fact that MAYBE your wrong. Every thing you have said I first went and looked up info on it just in case I may have missed some information, and then I reply. Not only that I have used exmaples of outside reputable sources while you continue to downplay me and try and bump yourself up opposed to bring corroborating evidence of your argument. You proceed to sing the same song, different dance and dismiss any disagreement as me 'not getting it' or 'not knowing as much as you' or being some corporate plant, all of which are personal attacks btw. You haven't directly refuted any of my arguments, you just keep restating your position with more or less 'your wrong' in front of it and refusing to provide more information with excuses of not wasting your time or we'll just spew more 'bullshit.' I can't recall the last time I have seen someone make so many posts while managing to say so little and bring almost nothing new to the table.
 
I didn't notice any latency on unreal and dirt, although I did on red faction.

" @Dionysus187:  Look, I've explained it very carefully to you, yet you refuse to get it.  You're doing what you're accusing me of doing.  I'll paste what I wrote before :
 
"You compress the video of a 360, PS3 or PC game and you're lowering the quality of those graphics, where you aren't degrading the quality of the OnLive footage further.  Videos of PS3, 360 and PC games will look better running on your own system.  That is not true with OnLive..."  OnLive videos on the net = what you see is what you get.  Console or PC videos on the net = the real thing looks better than the videos.  That simple enough for you to understand? "

 Compressing video that's already compressed isn't some how lossless. ANY video you compress further loses quality. Easy test, take a video and compress it. compress it again. Now do it again. Use the same compression for each iteration. Notice how it didn't stop losing quality just after the first compression. The last iteration will look the worst than the first.
 
Its relative. If PC is 100, and Onlive is 80, if you cut the quality in half their not both '50' their 50 and 40. Your premise is flawed and therefore any conclusions you have drawn from that premise are also flawed.
 
See how I have given you a practical example, even instructions on how to test my argument? This is better than simply saying I know more than you and you should blindly accept my argument from authority.

and you just admitted that the relatively quality would stay the same showing onlive worse than PC despite compression, making your arguments against video comparisons invalid. Nice job proving yourself wrong.

and you just admitted that the relatively quality would stay the same showing onlive worse than PC despite compression, making your arguments against video comparisons invalid. Nice job proving yourself wrong

If PC is 100, Xbox 360 and PS3 are 70 and OnLive is 10, you compress then all and PC becomes 20, Xbox 360 and PS3 become 15 and OnLive becomes 9.

"@Diamond said:
Anyways, here's a REAL screenshot of OnLive gameplay, taken by someone during the beta.  Supposedly this guy even cranked up the details beyond what OnLive's default settings for Crysis Warhead was..

"

Because it was
A: Beta, not now. If you want me to decimate countless services and software by judging them in past testing phases I can, i got time. Would be like shooting fish in a barrel
B: Its admittedly settings the service was not optimized for. Might as well juice up a car and call bullshit on the manufacturer since its eating up more gas than the stated MPG.
 
In summary, its not a controlled test.
 
You call bull shit on someone taking a screen shot when not moving (which is done very often when reviewing video games), I call bull shit on using PURELY screen shots, most of which are out of date, to publicly judge a motion based medium. Judge a film's production values purely on stills while your at it. i won't deny it could help build a larger picture of a review, but using it as the base or even sole base in conjunction with old information is just downright unethical.