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

Reader Comments (53)

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 6:27PM WiNGSPANTT from TopTierTacticsco said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
OnLive seems like the idea everyone loves to hate right now.

Frankly, I think we should go into this optimistically, as its success could completely revolutionize gaming in ways we can't imagine.

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 6:32PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That's what they said about Steam.

Five-years later, the technology finally caught up.
Reply

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 6:32PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You'd think after being duped with nonsensical and ridiculous promises once this year, you folks would be a little burnt out on 'hope' and 'change'.

Reply

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 6:37PM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
There's no sense even hoping this will work. The 100% truth is, the way everything is now it will NOT work in America.

Now, if they think they can keep this running without one of the largest markets in the world then by all means go for it. Just don't expect it to work in America without drastic changes to the way we handle internet.
Reply

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 6:41PM FredFredrickson said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hope and change are working out fine for us so far, Douche (why do I get satisfaction out of calling you by your name?). Not sure what you're talking about.

I gotta say though - OnLive just sounds terrible. It takes the lag away from the game world and puts it straight into your hands.

Imagine a laggy Gears of War game. You pull the trigger on the controller, your on-screen gun fires, and then a second later you see the bullets hit the ground where you aimed.

With a laggy OnLive game, you'll use the stick and pull the trigger to aim and fire, but you won't see this action happen for a second. The lag has been transferred to your physical input and visual response, rather than just in the game world.

Sounds pretty crappy, huh?
Reply

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 6:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
^ Yup lag will kill this service. It's a stellar idea but the huge majority of connections out there will not be ab-le to handle this.

Most people need new ethernet cab-les.
Reply

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 6:47PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
While I am seriously doubtful this will work, I am really hoping it does. A day when we don't have to buy 3-4 systems every 5 years is a day I look forward to (Although for some strange reason I'd miss "the hunt" of getting a console day 1)
Reply

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 6:56PM Duke said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think you guys are ignoring that these people are working to make that lag problem not exist. You all act as though you just figured out the hitch in the idea when they have been working on making it happen for years. Its not like these guys had no clue of lag and its forms - this is the business they are in! Maybe you should give it a try before declaring that it’s not possible.
Reply

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 6:59PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Making it completely lag free won't stop internet providers from putting caps on even faster, and won't magically make most of the country all of a sudden have broadband with super fast internet speeds.

Like I said, it's impossible. Come back in 10 years and try again.
Reply

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 7:02PM pedasn said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ Sir Buzz Killington( The Artist formerly known as Jakka)

but that's what they said about amazon too. they also needed a few years to turn profit.

in my opinion they are all terrified if this could really happen. btw... isn't sony teasing some cloudcomputing too?
Reply

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 7:26PM googleadam said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hmmm idk, I dont personally 'hate' it but I would love to see how much the fee will be

like cmon that is gonna be a LOT of streaming and a LOT of bandwidth

I just wonder how successful it will really be
Reply

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 9:14PM Odog4ever said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Seems like Sony is scared of the future. Don't know why, they still have time to come up with a new business model. Even if OnLive burns to ground a new utopian future of gaming in the cloud will grow out of it's ashes. It will take 5-10 years for the US internet infrastructure to catch up but by then all the bugs will have been worked out.
Don't you think the cables companies would put an OnLive type service into their set top boxes (the OnLive box is already fraking small) and include that as part of a faster speed package? The cable companies have no incentive to build out faster networks unless there are services that people demand, services that need more bandwidth such as streaming HD video and services like OnLive.
It may not work today but one day it will. Saying it won't is like saying physical media won't go away.
Reply

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 10:25PM BananaBoat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
For me this issue is fairly cut and dry. OnLive is basically remote desktop. Remote desktop is fairly laggy on a 100mbit lan. This will be over the internet, with much higher latency. Even at the show, with the servers close (I'd assume) people were complaining about the latency in games like Burnout. I can't even imagine the latency when that data has to travel across the entire continent.

I both love the idea behind OnLive and hate it. On the one hand, I'd love to never have to buy a new console again. On the other hand, I hate the idea that I'd never again own my own games. I also despise latency, so the service doesn't appeal to me. In 10 years, when we've caught up to South Korea and Japan in terms of internet infrastructure, I'd reconsider. This service, or this type of service, may very well be the future, but I don't think it is possible or necessary right now.
Reply

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 6:30PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The main question I have is this, the people who don't have a high speed internet connection (there are parts different countries that don't have access to it), if they try to replace consoles, it is effectively cutting those people off from video games.

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 6:42PM FredFredrickson said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
OnLive will never replace consoles. You have nothing to worry about.
Reply

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 7:51PM JuanLovesHorror said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Consoles will never die because there will be millions of people like marty who will stick by their consoles and will never let something like this take over.
Reply

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 11:58PM leemahi said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
READ WHAT FFFUNFARM06 WROTE AT THE BOTTOM. MUST SEE...
Reply

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 4:49PM FredFredrickson said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's not about how much I like consoles... it's more about what is possible, and what is acceptable to gamers, and OnLive will not meet either demand.
Reply

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 6:30PM RKN said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
He's saying that because Online so couldn't handle streaming PS3 gameplay, the power of the Cell and 4D graphics would overload their servers in a heartbeat. ; )

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 6:35PM EGOvoruhk said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Sony sure does love to complain how much it costs to run servers

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 6:37PM JCarpio said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
When is Sony ever positive about something that isn't Sony developed and is their competition?

Rhetorical question of course.

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 6:44PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
But everyone is questioning it.

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 6:49PM JCarpio said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
As well as they should. It could be Phantom 2.0 for all we know. But it is an intriguing curiosity.

Or they could just be trying to sell themselves so a bigger company can buy them.
Reply

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 6:46PM FredFredrickson said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm with Sony on this one. OnLive is a pipe dream, and it'll never happen the way you've heard that it will. It's a fantastical idea that can't work on our current information infrastructure, or even one moderately better for that matter.

I really don't understand why the press has been having wet dreams about it. I'll attribute it to the lack of other controversial news from GDC, I guess.

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 8:53PM mynk said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i don't get why everyone is saying it'll never happen.
i understand if you say it cant happen with current infrastructure
i understand if you say we need to wait for faster Internet to all
i understand if you say that sony/msoft would pull it off better before onLive

but NEVER happen? do you really want to risk looking ridiculous when it does happen?
Reply

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 4:50PM FredFredrickson said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Oh right, I guess I should be worried about when this *might* happen, in 10-20 years. I'm sure the Joystiq archivists will be looking back on these comments and shaking their heads.
Reply

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 6:52PM Jacksons said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well, I certainly don't have the bandwidth to run something like that - 1mbit down. Look out, T3.

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 6:57PM geishroy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i don't think sony should be questioning final cost to consumers...

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 7:08PM Typicalgamer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
costing you about 1000 bucks with a $50 monthly fee. Not to mention the games you have to buy. Hurray!!!

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 7:41PM swimtedswim said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
ps3 with xbox live????
Reply

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 7:43PM Typicalgamer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
no, 2 ps3's+xbox live
Reply

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 8:13PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Why not just say 2 Microsoft Xbox 360 Elite's with Xbox live?
Reply

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 8:14PM Typicalgamer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
why don't i say 3 1/2 wii's+xbox live?
Reply

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 7:09PM Professor Lario said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
While this may be out of the scope of OnLive I would love the ability to allow a friend to watch what I am playing or I what he is playing. I am not sure if I am alone, but I love watching a good single-player title. I would enjoy watching a friend play through Fallout 3 for instance.

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 7:16PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
You're a gaming voyeur too?!
Reply

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 11:26PM Martin C said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If this comes to fruition, that is entirely plausible. In theory, it would just be streaming the same feed to two people, with only one controlling the actual game.

Hell, why stop there? Why not let the group decide on the fly who is sending the controller inputs to the server for processing?

Back in the SNES days, I would often switch off levels with my best friend, and this might help facilitate a little of that.
Reply

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 7:32PM Salain said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
While I'm as skeptical about this as everyone else is - the lag wouldn't necessarily be worse for onlive, just different. The interaction with your remote gaming PC will now build a lag component into your interface, the remote computer is going to be attached directly to a major hub.

People are making a good point about there being a 2*ping delay before input device commands are recorded. But the latency from the computer to remote servers is going to be 1*ping (to your remote rig) less, since the rig is half-way there.

More importantly, if you are playing with other onlive subscribers your ping to them will be sub millisecond. That means that if a lot of people move to onlive, we could see HUGE improvements in gaming quality. They still have to get over the 2*ping to rig latency hump, but once someone accomplishes that we could see significant reduction in lag for online games under this framework.

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 7:58PM ludwigk said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
That's assuming the tech works at all as described, which requires a near-zero latency method of encoding the game video to a stream. With technology like that, they could dominate the video encoding industry, since its about 150x as fast as what is currently available in the ~$5000 encoder hardware business.
Reply

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 7:35PM juggalotusmx said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
sounds like somebody is getting anxious.... are you scared??

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 8:02PM Liekos said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
OnLive just won't work. I would LOVE for it to work, but it won't. The technology just isn't in place for something like this to be feasible yet, and I highly doubt Rearden is such a bunch of Einsteins that they've fixed all problems with lag, video compression, load balancing, etc. Oh and they've fixed all the problems with internet service providers too. I don't know about you, but my cable connection from Comcast is shit - or is OnLive implying that the traffic to the ISP backbones will be lagfree...and anything downstream from that is an ISP issue and 'not their fault'? Something tells me that might not be far from the truth of the situation.

And what about Multiplayer? Is Rearden implying that along with this groundbreaking service offering where anyone can play any game lag free at 720p, they'll be offering a seemless multiplayer platform for every single game also? Really? Who hosts those multiplayer servers?

And say you 'buy' 20 games to own on their service. What happens with outages/downtimes of the service? You basically own games you can't play? What about when OnLive goes under - all the games you bought just disappear?

Rearden will not be able to overcome the purely astronomical costs such an offering would incur...let alone the technological challenges. Normally I would applaud such an effort, but making wild promises about vapor tech when it so clearly is unfeasible is a little irritating. You can bet I signed up for the beta though.

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 8:29PM Catprog said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
For multi player think of a lan party.

I believe it won't work but multi player is easy if they can get it up and running for single player games.
Reply

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 8:45PM nikescar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think Sony's point about the cost of servers is kinda weak. Microsoft has lost around a billion on this gens console and Sony has probably lost more. If this OnLive unicorn, I mean company, spent that on servers they'd have some decent hardware.

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 11:01PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This will fail because they won't get enough subscribers to cover their initial operating costs. Period. People like to own the things they buy. Even purchased digital content is still owned as it is stored on a hard drive in the person's home. With this service, you pay a subscription AND pay to buy games. And you still own NOTHING. (and even though they haven't announced pricing, everyone knows there will be a subscription fee and a fee to buy games because there would be no way they could make enough money otherwise)

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 11:50PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
First Nintendo, Now Sony. I can't wait for OnLive to silence criticizers this winter. -Alex, OnLive forum http://www.onlive1.com

Posted: Apr 3rd 2009 3:06AM Extinction said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
says the jerk who saw a new fad so he registered a url in hopes of exploiting it for money. you have a vested interest in it, and that makes you blind and stupid
Reply

Posted: Apr 1st 2009 11:55PM leemahi said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
ha ha ha ha ha...
when it does work and does come out this holiday, i want you all hang yourselves for being idiots.
back in the days of dial up, no one ever thought you could transfer files 5 mb a second. they said it was impossible. look at them now. what makes you think that comcast and rr would love to capitalize in Onlive and increase bandwidths for 5 10 bucks more?
they are not streaming live hd tv guys. they are only streaming little bits of code of positioning on a map, the colors of the area or just the main, compressed 0's and 1's of textures and shit. that is why you need a computer next to this thing to do the rest of the computing and display it on a screen.
its like having my xbox a thousand miles away ok? that xbox is going to do less than half the work of encoding a game disk to tv because my computer is doing the other half. thus less bits. that xbox is not only going to send it to my computer, but its going to actually compress those packets with new compression technology; like any other company always improves with the services they would be offering. all they want a computer to do is unpack the files, do the computing of color and bit mapping and add compressed textures to the mix and waa la. what the computer and the server did just then was worth about a nvidia 9500gt, done in 2 different places.

IT IS NOT SENDING HDTV, ITS SENDING CODES FOR YOUR COMPUTER TO DECOMPRESS AND REWRITE.

and thats exactly why you need a very fast internet and huge servers a 1000 miles away.

you have to believe. you guys dont learn from your own history? i bet in 20 years computers will be at the speed of light. look at what CERN is doing with the GRID.

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 2:30PM Duke said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
While I personally think this tech should be given a chance, I also think your post is full of bs and misunderstanding of how things work. Also, you came off as a dick right off the back telling people to hang themselves. Don't mock others for being wrong when you don't have a grasp on the facts yourself.
Reply

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 12:11AM Lekko said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Actually.. by itself OnLive isn't really that attractive, but if it was available on other systems suddenly it could be very very cool.

Think about it. If the PS3 and the 360 had OnLive, you could play top-end PC games on your console streamed. That would potentially open up all of PC gaming's catalog to console owners. You could play Gears of War on PS3 (PC port) or you could play... okay well most PS3 games don't get PC ports, but you get the idea. 360 gamers could play Crysis among other games.

Now if OnLive supported consoles (not going to happen) then everyone could play every game on any system.

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 4:05AM mahouneko said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's a plausible idea but there are some things that you'd need to have in place before something like that can be done.

1. You'd need a standardized controller-input interface for the PC game that is being streamed (otherwise you would need a keyboard and mouse support as well)

2. Some titles work better on the PC rather than the console, though I'd LOVE to see Supreme Commander streamed down as a playable game in all its visual glory.

3. Some consoles are connected to a wireless router and current console technology doesn't support the 802.11n protocol so if there's lag, it's most likely from the link between the router and the console.

4. Regarding lag, broadband companies are rather notorious for capping bandwidth to its customers. Some even throttle the bandwidth by using deep-packet-sniffing (read: Comcast). At this point in time, the biggest hurdle is going to come from the broadband companies who aren't going to want to upgrade their infrastructure just to benefit OnLive users.

I guess that's about it. It IS an interesting technology though and I'm rather annoyed at Sony's idiotic remark. It's as if Sony has completely forgotten about the PS3 cluster servers that host WarHawk matches. >_>
Reply

Posted: Apr 2nd 2009 9:27AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Forget about all the technical stuff with lag and such. If this is anything more than a rental service, I will hate it. I'm not willing to give up my right to at least own the digital copy of the code. At least with Steam, the data still resides on your computer. With this, the only thing you get is what is displayed on the screen.


Featured Stories

Image

Silver Lining: I Am Alive's unfeeling world

Posted on May 25th 2012 7:30PM

Image

Game Of Thrones and the paradoxes of adaptation

Posted on May 25th 2012 5:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW