| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (94)

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 3:53AM Negativecool said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Another fantastic invention!
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 4:13AM DrScientist said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Here's hoping it works well.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 4:42PM SoCoolCurt said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
yea it certainly sounds like a great idea. here's hoping it unfolds like as well as it sounds.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 6:05PM ch3burashka said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Even if it works, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo (or M.S.N.) will all try their own, and people will flock to those. Think Guitar Freaks vs. Guitar Hero/Rock Band.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 4:12AM Istari Spartan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Good thinking.

Hope it works ok.
Any news if it'll be available in the UK?

Hope Microsoft and Sony don't patent-sue it to hell.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 5:13AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Patent what?
The controller possibly, but beyond that theres very little it has in common with traditional console's. it's mainly for playing PC games (though theres a vid where he mentions making tools to port 360 and PS3 games over) so the closest competitor is possibly Steam.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 5:14AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Oh as for UK, looks like it's having a US beta but form there "who know's?"
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 5:40AM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Are you kidding me?! In the UK especially, but everywhere else too, they are clamping down on shit like this with caps, which this will max out very quickly indeed.
Just the introduction of the BBC iplayer has brought the uk broadband network to its knees, you're lucky to get anywhere near the required speed at peak hours.

This is the stupidest idea i have EVER seen. Most regular people don't trust downloadable games as they think its not "owning" the game. With this thing you own NOTHING. Stop paying the subscription, or the business goes bust(a certainty, especially with this economy), and you have a paperweight.

This is worse than the Phantom. That anyone could think this will replace the PC and its increasingly sophisticated browser games is laughable.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 9:42AM arsohn said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Joetheblow

Folks also said people wouldn't jump on the Itunes bandwagon because they didn't own a physical song, and look where that went.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 2:06PM Duke said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Joe, that was way over the top man. This is the stupidist idea you have ever heard of? If that's true, I urge you to read and get out more. This is actually a pretty darn good idea. Its not going to destroy the need for pc and consoles, but it offers a niche market for people who want something different. Just like itunes did for people who wanted another option besides going out to buy cd's. Or the Zune marketplace where you pay a monthly fee for music - which you don't own once you stop paying the fee. People love that crap. Now, you may not be interested in it because you say you'll own nothing, but that doesn't make this idea so insane or stupid - it just makes it unappealing to you.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 3:38PM Duke said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Also, "Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, Take-Two Interactive, Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment, THQ, Epic Games, Eidos, Atari Interactive and Codemasters are already on-board."

Really, this is not the situation we had with the Phantom. This device exists, is operating for people to try and has some serious support.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 5:46PM Alex R said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Best not to hold our breath for a UK release. We still don't have a Kindle, Netflix, Dunkin' Donuts or Renegade Kid games on the DS. And how does Fable II, a British game, come out in the US first?!

Also, we don't have nearly enough Starbuckses.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 4:26AM oteriba said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Very cool stuff. I will be watching for this out in the wild. The Phantom that was supposed to come out has raised my skepticism on this a little bit. But if they can pull it off this will be cool.

I don't see console manufacturers jumping on this anytime soon. Buying games is fine, but they still want you to buy their hardware too, and why buy a 720 or PS4 when you already have this?
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 5:45AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I agree. The service is too ambitious for today's networking speeds. Once everyone has fiber or cable for that matter I can see OnLive being a success. Not today. I would almost compare it to the Dreamcast and its at the time online capabilities. Too ambitious and not mainstream enough to be successful. Perhaps Rearden Studios will be courted as a possible acquisition. I would LOVE to be able to play any PC title of my choosing. I never thought I would play Crysis and perhaps one day I shale...and sooner than later. Its easy to be pessimistic about the service, as it sounds too good to be true. I hope I'm wrong.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 9:35AM arsohn said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This is awesome, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft's next console takes a similar approach.

For years they've been predicting that computers were going to go the way of the dinosaur on the consumer side and everything would start shifting to server based configs. Which makes perfect sense if you think about it. It would dramatically reduce the price of hardware on the consumer end, but also give companies the ability to jump in on subscription fees and microtransactions.

I for one am quite excited about the possibilities, this could truely be the great equalizer for many, in being able to experience high end gaming as well as other high end applications.

I think our (US) internet speeds are still a little bit lagging behind, but once the HDTV switchover finally happens and all of that analog bandwith finally opens up I think our internet speeds will dramatically increase and we can finally have that universal wireless internet blanket.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 4:30AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Not going to work.

A 720p video is 6mbps, conservatively. For 100 people, you're looking at 600mbps + whatever controller input/protocol overhead. Considering it'd be burst speed, presumably during peak time, you'd be paying a premium for that aswell.

I run a reasonably powerful computer on 550 watts of power, for the aforementioned 100 people, you'd need 55 kilowatts of power, just for the computers alone. Add in networking gear, backup systems and cooling and it's becoming pretty damn expensive.

Then there's the licensing fees for all the games they'd need to support.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 4:32AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Oh, standard definition video (576x432) is 2mbps. Still prohibitively expensive.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 5:38AM BananaBoat said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I'd have to agree with you. This business venture doesn't appear to scale very well at all on first glance. It could work in a country like Korea, or Japan, with their crazy infrastructure, but in the US where bandwidth on this scale is expensive? I find it hard to believe that there is any way for this to actually work.

In other words, it's great in theory since a lot more computer can decode 720p video, compared with how many can run a game like Crysis at 720p. The market would become MUCH bigger, if this were even remotely feasible, but I'm very skeptical at this point in time.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 5:47AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ Evangel

tried to reply to your comment and failed :-( Look up
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 7:36AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I wasn't talking about client-side bandwidth, that's relatively easy to get (we have 24mbit here in Australia, although with ridiculously small caps that would give you about a days worth of game time with this service) but with the server side and infrastructure. A few hundred people would strain a network, a few thousand would cripple it. Simply put, this will not scale well at all.

Assuming you could get an infinite amount of bandwidth and the infrastructure to send petabytes of data across the country, you'd still have to deal with the power to actually render that data.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 9:37AM arsohn said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
They said the same thing about going to the moon.

Anything is possible. I'm sure People thought Mario Brothers was the best gaming was ever going to get. 5 years ago, no one would believe you could instantly watch movies over a Microsoft or Playstation produced console.

It's not a matter of if, it's only a matter of when.
Reply

Posted: Apr 17th 2009 12:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well i think its kinda a lame idea and at the same time i beleive its a good idea but a past comment said that you wont be able to "OWN" the game which i beleave to be true cuz if you stop paying the monthly fee you will not be able to play the games you payed for. I do like that the lagging will be kept to a minimum cuz my ps3, 360, and wii get annoying when they lag so im up for onLive !!! (psn- frost573 )(360- Frisked809 )
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 4:38AM Darayz said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Streaming games to any computer? A physical media-less future? Somewhere out there, a Gamestop executive is attempting to make trading in bandwidth a possible business model. Or, he's aiming the deathstar at Rearden Studios.
Reply

Posted: Mar 25th 2009 11:53PM ddhboy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Just as an aside, Gamestop's stock dropped 1 and a half cents when OnLive was announced.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 5:10AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah, the jury will have to still be out on this one. We need to see *how* it works, and how they manage the process (are they consumer oriented?). As well as how well it works. Absolutely amazing if it does work.

And that latency "issue," well, that is a very serious one of the highest order. A game like Crysis wars would be unplayable if half the players had 250+ pings. Also, no second sales... we PC gamers are already getting so sadly used to such a sad concept.

Remember: give us something that's better than what we have and doesn't involve significant hassle and you have our wallets!

-MidnightPlatinum from A Flawless Red Diamond
http://aflawlessreddiamond.blogspot.com/
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 5:10AM Premature ejaculation man said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sounds brilliant.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 5:24AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Many issues-
-Lag is one in your face issue, but they reckon they've sorted it.
-What happens if there server is down, or your net is down? Even Steam has Offline Mode, this can have no such option.
-How do the developers get paid? If i go to the shop n buy Mirrors Edge then EA get the cash, if I 'Stream' as part of a subscription then how do they figure out how much EA get's paid?
-Will MP games on OnLive work with the same MP game on a normal PC? And how well does it play, normal MP is jsut dealing with where your aiming n where you are on the map, this deals with that and streaming HD to you.
-This seem's rather similar to Phantom. They ended up making keyboards.
-Is it only going to offer the current "Top 20" on the shelves then? Between Steam's 4000 catalog you can own and these guys top 20 you stream, I know who I'd go for.

For my many criticisms I wish them all the best, any innovation and competition for consoles and PC is a good thing. even if these guys crash n burn the other guys will learn some lessons.

Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 7:13AM falcomadol said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
There are ways to disguise lag, but there is no way to get rid of it entirely, particularly using "five servers."

No one can produce a synchronous input output experience over the internet that will be lag free or even playable except over a direct physical connection between two systems.

This guy is talking about less lag than exists on your LCD flat panel television.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 9:40AM arsohn said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ deanb,

You said,
"-This seem's rather similar to Phantom. They ended up making keyboards."

LOL, did they ever even release that POS? I remember looking at their "prototype" model and it looked like a total piece of junk!
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 2:18PM Duke said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
No Alex it wasn't released, thats why its consided the greatest example of vaporware.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 5:29AM Vordus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
And then your connection drops out for no particular reason, and you lose all the progress you made since you last saved.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 5:50AM In A World said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Sounds like an incredibly stupid and inefficient use of bandwidth. Halo 3 barely registers 1/100th the network usage this thing would supposedly require, and even THAT is susceptible to hiccups, game-ruining lag, etc. If you wanna see this type of technology in action, just run PS3-to-PSP Remote Play: that has 10 times the bandwidth of this soon-to-be-vaporware and STILL you end up with a delay of 1-3 seconds after every button press.

Not gonna work.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 5:50AM BananaBoat said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I'm curious what they think their business model is going to be. Monthly subscription for an all access pass to their content, with cheaper options for a limited amount of games, or play time, etc?

This sounds like the kind of thing that will work GREAT on a small scale. That will bring in VC, and then the service will really take off. Once it has been going for awhile, they will hit a barrier where their hardware and their bandwidth can't handle all the simultaneous players. How many concurrent games of Crysis could a ridiculously expensive gaming PC play at 720p? 2? 3? How could they possibly keep up with that, at a couple grand per machine in bulk (at least)? Will they have to charge an exorbitant price for their service to compensate?

At the end of the day, this type of thing is my nightmare. A service where I don't get to own any of the games (ever), the games can be pulled from the service whether I am done or not, etc. No thank you.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 5:59AM Premature ejaculation man said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"OnLive subscription-based service's price will likely be comparable to Xbox Live. That's just to access the service, however. Once inside you can either buy or rent games, and that price point will be left up to the developer."
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 7:07AM BananaBoat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
My sleep deprived brain scanned right over that thinking it said "Xbox Live Service blah blah blah"

That you can buy games is a load of crap when paired with the statement that only new games will be on the service. "You can buy these games....for the couple of months they are on our service, then you are f*cked" is how it should read. Unless you can download games you buy...in which case....what is the point of their streaming video service?

Someone else brought up a good point (possibly on engadget) that their "latency" figures are BS. Ping any server, anywhere in the world, and tell me if the latency is reported at 1ms. Unless that is a misprint, there is something fishy going on. The latency will most likely be in the 1 second or more range (which would render most games unplayable). The example of remote desktop is the most astute, since you are running a remote desktop on a LAN and it still isn't smooth.




Sleep...need sleep...precious sleep...
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 7:08AM BananaBoat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Engadget just updated that the reported 1ms latency was for encoding/decoding.




Pants
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 6:00AM SitriStahl said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
wait, shooters on a gaming console...but with a keyboard option
this may be one of the greatest gaming innovations yet, if it works
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 7:18AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Keyboards, you say? Now I see how the Phantom turned into one.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 8:39AM leslij55 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
UT3 on PS3 with keyboard and mouse does me fine.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 7:32AM sjenky said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Why do the buttons spell out "EVIL" ?
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 12:20PM Levi Partridge said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Or if you start at the L it says LEVI.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 10:18PM BananaBoat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Or you could spell VILE

Just saying.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 7:52AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I like how IGN said it could be the death of both pc and console gaming. Wrong. According to them you need a somewhat fast connection to be able to use this the way it's intended, which most of America does not have (hell a lot of us don't even have broadband still).

Also, with the way it's going now companies will start using caps which will kill something like this in no time. Then add to the fact that the common person who buys games will have to be aware of something like this and actually know how to use it, and this thing has no shot of taking down console gaming. It's a good idea, but extremely flawed.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 8:45AM ColorblindMonk said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It doesn't look like a console exactly for everybody.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 8:52AM baby sea tuna said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Nobody get in front of GoToGuy...that guy *can't* drive 55! It's just physically impossible for him to do!
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 8:59AM samfish said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
This thing is about 2 generations ahead of it's time. Network speeds just aren't up to snuff to support a service like this. Certainly not in the USA, at least. Japan could probably handle it. Europe, too...
It's almost certainly the future, though.

At any rate, this rubs me the wrong way. I want to own my games and have physical copies whenever possible. I'm to the point where I'm OK with digital copies of a lot of games, but having to pay every time I want to play a game just doesn't feel right to me.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 9:40AM HTCEVO said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You don't pay every time you want to play the game. Read the article.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 9:40AM c0bra95 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
The bandwidth issue is at least debatable. The latency, though, is not. There is absolutely no way you're going to get the same quality experience in real-time action games if you have to send your controller's input to a server, then wait for the transfer both ways. In addition to the basic transfer time, there's the processing of your input, rendering server-side, updating you, the client, with the new gobs of visual data (which will take a hell of a lot longer than a millisecond, come to think of it) etc. There's going to be unacceptable lag under even the best of conditions. And most of us have to deal with hoppy ISPs, not the best of conditions.

No, I don't think so. Not today.
Reply

Posted: Mar 25th 2009 10:49PM Crono141 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I just realized: Its possible that a stripped down version of whatever games engine is actually uploaded and stored on the client side. It handles all the input and tells the server what frame needs rendering, so that button presses and controls don't need to be sent over the wires, just the next cycle of the engine.

Raw speculation, of course.
Reply

Posted: Mar 24th 2009 9:44AM arsohn said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
that does sound exciting! NOW GET OFF JOYSTIQ
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Portabliss: Time Ducks (iOS)

Posted on Feb 7th 2012 9:00PM

Portabliss: Sticky Bees (iOS)

Posted on Feb 6th 2012 9:00PM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW