Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
[Merged] Onlive - On-Demand / Streaming / Cloud-Based Gaming Technology
- Thread starter evan g
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
yeah the problem is with such a board/slot system system that it has to be developed first and tailored for this use
there sure will be such systems in the future but they will come from current hardware makers and they will sell such systems to ISPs (keeping latency low) as additional services on top of you normal internet bill
also games will have to be developed with such systems/plattforms from the ground up
yeah it's some sort of sharing but just like MMORPG developers they will have the problem of spikes:
who is gaming in the morning ? nobody
who is gaming at 7-9 pm ? a ridiculous amount of people
except that MMORPG developers have the advantage of needing way less computation power
sure its a good idea but it will take at least 5 years and then will only work for less action/fast paced games
and world wide is out of the question because of latency
http://www.wowinsider.com/2009/03/24/behind-the-scenes-of-wows-bandwidth/
Speaking of MMORPG's, a recent article on World of Warcraft's Servers and Data Hosting. Until i read this, i was unaware that AT&T helped them.
Speaking of MMORPG's, a recent article on World of Warcraft's Servers and Data Hosting. Until i read this, i was unaware that AT&T helped them.
Check out the press conference when you get a chance. They said they have been working on this problem for years and made new hardware. It doesn't sound like they just bought some off-the-shelf hardware from Dell or something and "tweaked them".
Maybe they can even patent some of these technologies and sell it for something else. Like another Cisco perhaps. Who knows.
I play only at 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 , and require zero lag for online shooters and minimal for mmorpg's.
I seriously doubt they can smoothly push 1920x1200 and up for thousands simultaneously.
I seriously doubt they can smoothly push 1920x1200 and up for thousands simultaneously.
the res they stated is 720p which is just fine for macbooks and okay for MBPs.
considering that more & more macs being sold are laptops, that's not bad. you can still hook your laptop to your tv and use it as a traditional games console.
it's not meant for high-end pc gamers with $2000-$3000 rigs. you still have the option to buy discs or downloaded content
Their video is up. It says it'll be here by Winter 2009.
I still like the idea, it's just if the execute it well.
I still like the idea, it's just if the execute it well.
This had release dates too
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Phantom_(game_system)
Sound at all familiar??
Vaporware, either it wont be released or it'll die the minute it hits the market.
Good Idea
I just watched the video and I like the idea. Now I will have to wait to the best part? The details on how it will really work will be a big factor. It could turn out to be a great thing. Steam has done well many did not think they would.
Should be neat to see how it will really work.
I just watched the video and I like the idea. Now I will have to wait to the best part? The details on how it will really work will be a big factor. It could turn out to be a great thing. Steam has done well many did not think they would.
Should be neat to see how it will really work.
I was thinking there might be a business issue too.
I mean, look at NetFlix, Hulu, etc. The content delivery portion are usually the old stuff that people rarely would buy.
I don't imagine they can just take any game at all and start charging people to play it on thier terms just like that. It's almost like pirating then. Like if I buy one copy and duplicate it across 100 instances and charge 100 subscriptions. It would depend on whether they can ultimately work out the deals with the big manufacturers. Otherwise, OnLive will be the place where you go play Mario Brothers.
I mean, look at NetFlix, Hulu, etc. The content delivery portion are usually the old stuff that people rarely would buy.
I don't imagine they can just take any game at all and start charging people to play it on thier terms just like that. It's almost like pirating then. Like if I buy one copy and duplicate it across 100 instances and charge 100 subscriptions. It would depend on whether they can ultimately work out the deals with the big manufacturers. Otherwise, OnLive will be the place where you go play Mario Brothers.
The hype for this is going to disappear when they announce the pricing.
In essence you will be renting a high end computer, which will end up costing a lot more over time than just buying the hardware yourself.
Scrap this idea and let us run the server on our own computers, allowing us to play our games anywhere in the world through a web browser, similar to the PSP/PS3 game sharing feature.
In essence you will be renting a high end computer, which will end up costing a lot more over time than just buying the hardware yourself.
Scrap this idea and let us run the server on our own computers, allowing us to play our games anywhere in the world through a web browser, similar to the PSP/PS3 game sharing feature.
In the live press conference video, they mentioned more than once that a PC gamer needed a tricked out rig just to run a game like Crysis on high, so this is why I mentioned it, as that's no longer the case with today's hardware being so powerful at such a lo cost. It was all marketing, and intentionally misleading.
You should watch it, instead of making excuses for them.
If and when 1080 does become feasible, a compressed video will never look as good as the raw source. My midrange system can handle 1200p at more than 30 fps on high for most games and in some cases 1600p. IGN noted that the game looked fuzzy, which is what I was thinking would be the case, as it is a compressed video. I suppose if you're on a TV, it will be fine, but I don't sit that far from any of my monitors. I have to wonder if there will be noticeable screen artifacts, as I notice that on all digital content.
On the Direct X. Developers like Carmack stated there's nothing that can't be done in DX9, that can be done with DX10. MS is basically making it easier for the less experience developers to pull off certain effects.
They were saying that with fiber optics, they'll be able to get up to 1500 miles, and less with other connection. They also talked about going into hundreds of homes, trying lots of different connections and routers, to work on eliminating latency to get their packets to flow through. So what I gathered, which they commented on, is that eventually they'll need to setup their service all over the world, and that even the speed of light wasn't fast enough for someone living in Australia to play a game from a server in NA, even if it's a dedicated fiber line.
In the live press conference video, they mentioned more than once that a PC gamer needed a tricked out rig just to run a game like Crysis on high, so this is why I mentioned it, as that's no longer the case with today's hardware being so powerful at such a lo cost. It was all marketing, and intentionally misleading.
You should watch it, instead of making excuses for them.
If and when 1080 does become feasible, a compressed video will never look as good as the raw source. My midrange system can handle 1200p at more than 30 fps on high for most games and in some cases 1600p. IGN noted that the game looked fuzzy, which is what I was thinking would be the case, as it is a compressed video. I suppose if you're on a TV, it will be fine, but I don't sit that far from any of my monitors. I have to wonder if there will be noticeable screen artifacts, as I notice that on all digital content.
On the Direct X. Developers like Carmack stated there's nothing that can't be done in DX9, that can be done with DX10. MS is basically making it easier for the less experience developers to pull off certain effects.
They were saying that with fiber optics, they'll be able to get up to 1500 miles, and less with other connection. They also talked about going into hundreds of homes, trying lots of different connections and routers, to work on eliminating latency to get their packets to flow through. So what I gathered, which they commented on, is that eventually they'll need to setup their service all over the world, and that even the speed of light wasn't fast enough for someone living in Australia to play a game from a server in NA, even if it's a dedicated fiber line.
Yeah, well...you never know what they'll think of. How long ago did you think Youtube HD videos would have been unthought of. And before then...streaming video? I still remeber working on a project having a video conferencing line on this connection called ISDN which is 2 phone lines put together.
As for DX10 vs. DX9...even if what you are saying is true, it would be like WPF applications could have been made by "experienced developers" when Windows XP came out. And heck, if they are really good they can do it in Linux. If you were really really good, you can do a lot of things...given a lot of time. The real issue is the economics. Is it better to hire an expert expert for $200,000/year for a project that will take 2 years? ...and sell it for $50,000? Or a college intern for $10/hour that will do the same project over the summer via more advanced tools. It's like saying modern automation is useless because you can do the same production with an army of skilled laborers.
Yeah, well...you never know what they'll think of. How long ago did you think Youtube HD videos would have been unthought of. And before then...streaming video? I still remeber working on a project having a video conferencing line on this connection called ISDN which is 2 phone lines put together.
As for DX10 vs. DX9...even if what you are saying is true, it would be like WPF applications could have been made by "experienced developers" when Windows XP came out. And heck, if they are really good they can do it in Linux. If you were really really good, you can do a lot of things...given a lot of time. The real issue is the economics. Is it better to hire an expert expert for $200,000/year for a project that will take 2 years? ...and sell it for $50,000? Or a college intern for $10/hour that will do the same project over the summer via more advanced tools. It's like saying modern automation is useless because you can do the same production with an army of skilled laborers.
2004 if I'm recalling correctly, it was when Macromedia introduced support for on2VP6. I've been developing in Flash since 99, and I'm not one of those inexperience tween Flash guys that are bloatifying the internet with components while living on the timeline. There was never a size constraint on Flash video, I could encode something at any size if I wanted, the problem was performance and bandwidth. H.264 is just a better codec than on2VP6 -- which did a good job, but when going full screen it really taxed the CPU.
When watching YouTube in a browser, the image is only 640x360. I've noticed lots of sites advertise HD,then only offer SD video.
Yep, I recall ISDN. I worked out of a guy's house back in 96/97 that had one put in. My other friend back in 95 always joked about the phone companies charging more for doing less, as ISDN eliminated the need for analog to digital conversion, if I'm recalling correctly...
But still, even if 1080p were possible, it would never look as good as real footage, as long as it's being compressed. I'm not even happy with the current HD quality, as it tends to rip out so much information, just to make the image fit within a limited bandwidth.
This article actually confirms what I suspected about artifacts:
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/57855
But it is beta, so they have an excuse.
I agree with your last point, but most of the time ease of use and lack of inexperience comes with bloat and a shoddy end product, but I'm for progress. I'm glad I have a calculator as an example, especially when my mind is tired.
Decent article, makes some great points
http://www.pcworld.com/article/161930-2/gdc_09_6_reasons_onlive_could_be_a_bust.html
http://www.pcworld.com/article/161930-2/gdc_09_6_reasons_onlive_could_be_a_bust.html
You complain about not being able to "own" your purchase. People have been "renting" movies for a long time and this time it's online as well as through the mail. So since Netflix is so successful, it seems "renting" is a pretty good business, wouldn't you say?
Technically, you don't own that movie. You just own the physical media its on. The movie and it's parts are protected by copyright laws so what you have is the right to watch it at your will. It's the same thing with games.
Since many people don't need to "own" this in this fashion, they can charge you a smaller fee for "borrowing" it, if you want to look at it that way. It's cheaper this way because you have access to more products considering that each product's "useful life" is limited to the individual's enterainment out of it.
And many people begin to realize this after a while as well and rather watch a bunch of movies than have a few sitting on their shelves. That's why HBO exists. And you don't even have to go to the store.
In this gaming service, imagine if all your firends want to play Game X. Depending on the business model of course, as long as it's easily accessible, you can all play together withouth leaving someone out. Then if you don't like it or you move on...you didn't waste $60 on something you will never play again. So some of the "risk" is shifted onto OnLive rather than the consumer. If the game flops...you don't have to worry about it. They do. And they should be more "right" on average because they are pros...compared to the general population whom most only see bright ads.
But games are different. They're not something you devour one after the other since they're only 1-2 hours long. They're getting stupidly epic and games are now criticised for being less than 9 hours long. It's nothing like the movie industry at all.
Actually most games are "devoured" one after the other more or less. But like movies, sometimes you go for "reruns" after a while. EA specializes in games that only last until the next fad.
Because it costs much less to create a game than a movie, they can charge you "less" money per hour of entertainment because it lasts so long. But still not forever.
They are but people generally don't complete a 15 hour game one evening and repeat the process for another game the next day.
These are 2 such wildly different markets.
EA specialises in fad games? Uh, what? I don't like EA but it seems like you just completely missed what they do.
These are 2 such wildly different markets.
EA specialises in fad games? Uh, what? I don't like EA but it seems like you just completely missed what they do.
I never said it wouldnt be successful, i said they wouldnt be getting any money from me. If the ps3/360/wii generation is the last generation of consoles then it will be the last generation i game.
I'm just pointing out that it's limited in useful fun. You can perhaps switch to many different games during you subscription, but eventually, like titles you "own", most will sit on the shelf.
Look at all those EA sports games that come out every single year. They have "hits" that last a long time relatively, but most are just release and market to madness until most people forget it ever existed.
I too sometimes like to watch Terminator or Star Wars. But those are the exceptions. Not the rule.
Then that isn't the definition of a fad. That's just a series that they make, year in year out that most people don't even class in the same league as Zelda, GTA, Halo etc.
I think anyone who is into competative play (as you mentioned before) is going to want to own a copy of a game that they're likely to pump god knows how many hours in. In my case take TF2; I've put about 250 hours into that since I bought it before launch (beta) and I paid £26 for that and 4 other incredible games. How much would that 260 hours cost if I had to 'rent' it?
And for other games thats why we have demos, why shops have a return policy, why eBay and Cragslist exist. Or just buy games for stupidly cheap from Steam (I have 50 games that I spent £100 on over the space of 5 years).
I think anyone who is into competative play (as you mentioned before) is going to want to own a copy of a game that they're likely to pump god knows how many hours in. In my case take TF2; I've put about 250 hours into that since I bought it before launch (beta) and I paid £26 for that and 4 other incredible games. How much would that 260 hours cost if I had to 'rent' it?
And for other games thats why we have demos, why shops have a return policy, why eBay and Cragslist exist. Or just buy games for stupidly cheap from Steam (I have 50 games that I spent £100 on over the space of 5 years).
This is a kind of cloud computing. They will of course not use one "PC" per person playing a game.. They have huge farms of identical servers all running virtual servers on the fly. So if you want to play, they create a virtual server just for you. Each physical server has the potential to run many virtual instances of "World of Goo" for example.
They will not need to update servers left and right. They just add more hardware when needed. The hardware is abstracted, so they (and you) don't have to think about it. This will also scale along with the subscription fees from more and more users. So more users need more hardware - but also pays more subscriptions - allowing more hardware.
Also, everyone needs to sleep - so servers can mostly be serving US when Asia and Europe sleeps. So less wasted computing power for the planet
This is all based on my knowledge of cloud computing, which will be the future of all applications in the end
How many instances of Crysis or any other top-end game do you think a computer can run simultaneously?
We are not talking about World of Goo (anyone's computer can play that game), we are talking about users with EeePCs and Macbook Airs being able to play demanding games like Crysis, that's why OnLive is so interesting.