GDC09 interview: OnLive founder Steve Perlman, continued

Joystiq: So you're working with developers. Say you're working with Ubisoft on Prince of Persia, is that Prince of Persia the same exact Prince of Persia that would be on the PC? Are they changing parts of the game and if so what are they changing? What are the differences?
Steve Perlman: It's the exact same Prince of Persia and the only things that are being changed are really externalities like, you know, if you pick up a controller we've got to recognize the buttons the right away. For example, you can't change the resolution to anything other than HD, but even if OnLive figures out that your speed or your connection is too low and they've got to make it small screen, it still runs in HD and anybody who's spectated you sees you in HD; or if you do a Brag clip it saves in HD. So, we don't want you to changing the resolution. So, there's a couple of switches to turn off. We don't want you to bring up the Windows dialogue box for saving games. I don't know about that particular game, but some games, it actually shows the Windows so that you can navigate through the hierarchy for saving games. You know, we've to disable those kinds of things. The actual gameplay is the same.
Then you were talking about something like FIOS for example, that really improves the experience?
It doesn't improve the experience; it just lets you go further away from the service center.
Have you talked with cable companies or data centers like Akamai about getting more integrated access to their data networks, like Comcast?
Yes, so we've spoken to most of the major US ISPs because one of the things we want to make sure is that there's nothing we are doing from a statistical point of view, you know, is inefficient for their network. You know, one of the things that's been tough, I think a lot of the services that work through the net have been kind of knocking heads with the ISPs. There's a lot of P2P things that consume all of the upload bandwidth which is really really hard for them to manage from a statistical point of view, whereas OnLive's running in real-time, it's following the connection constantly and we are measuring it every couple of milliseconds. So, you know, there are peaks so if it's HD, we got it up to 4 megabits a second. But most of the time, it's down at a lower rate, you know, and those who have openings if you will with bandwidth allow other traffic to go through, it allows e-mail, to download a webpage or what have you. And the other thing is, our upstream bandwidth is a trickle, its controlled input and it's constant network measurements that we are sending out. So, if you look out from the point of view of a DSL or a cable modem or a fiber operator, we are like one of their friendliest customers because we never swamp through channel and we sort of encourage people to upgrade to a higher speed connection. So, so far their reactions were very very positive.
Comcast has a 250GB per month bandwidth cap. We did some quick math: if you are talking about 5 megabits a second connection for HD, which is theoretically maxed out, that gives you something like 3.5 hours a day of gaming time per month. And that's just for gaming.
"I suspect that Comcast may probably be a good thing for your social life if they put a cap at 9.5 hours, 30 days a month." |
So, if you look closely at what we explained on our website, the 5 megabits that we list is the marketing number you are probably going to need because what we find is most 5 megabit connections will deliver probably 4 megabits. The actual system needs about 4 megabits peak, not average. On average, we are running much lower than that. If you are really playing something like a driving game – driving games have constantly changing video, right? – so, we are pretty much running the system pretty high there. If you are running a game like that non-stop, you are probably averaging around 2 megabits a second. They may peak up to 4 and then it's below, but you know, that's assuming also that you're not taking a break, checking a leaderboard or doing something else. Let's just say that you're one hell of a non-stop, never take a break to go to the bathroom gamer, then you'd be using 2 megabits a second and, at 2 megabits a second, that's about a gigabyte an hour, okay? So, you'll then be able to play on Comcast for about 250 hours a month. Now let's say there's about 30 days a month, so it's about 9.5 hours a day. So, if you start playing games more than that, I suspect that Comcast may probably be a good thing for your social life if they put a cap at 9.5 hours, 30 days a month.
But the other thing about it is, I mean, so what's the worst case scenario there? Well, you've got to go to something less than HDTV. Now, the other thing that we talk about specifically is standard definition TV which will be, you know, say Wii resolution but we also handle resolutions in between like 1024 across; 800 across; and then all the way down to 600. If it's below that, we are going to say you don't have a fast enough connection. For the standard definition resolution, we're talking 1.2 megabits a second. Well, at 1.2 megabits a second, if you were running 24 hours a day, 30 days a month, you would not consume 250 gigabytes. So, for, I don't know -- if you are a person who never needs to sleep, never needs to eat, do anything else other than play high performance games and you need to run 24 hours a day for 30 days a month and you had a 250 gigabyte cap, then what you need to do is run it in standard definition. So, long story short, I think the bandwidth caps are not a major issue for OnLive.
How about getting the OnLive microconsole, or software, embedded into a cable box? That seems like the most obvious place for it.
We are not making any announcements at this time. There will be some other announcements this year. It's very inexpensive and the chip that we've designed in the microconsole is very low power and has a bunch of other functions in it that might apply to other types of devices.
I see, very interesting! In terms of purchasing options for consumers: are they purchasing, are they renting? If purchasing, is all the DLC unlocked as it becomes available? How many options will they have for the titles that will be available?
So, there will be a lot of different purchase options. We show two on the floor, just as an example, which is purchase or rent. Other people are talking about subscriptions, packages, where you maybe get all the sports titles or all this kind of title, whatever. There'll be promotions. You see with iTunes now where you get this many dollars on iTunes. So all those kinds of things are now possibilities that were not really feasible with package goods kind of model for business. We can expect the pricing of these games to be competitive with retail. Nobody's announcing pricing at this time. But obviously they're going to want the games to sell. And they're also not going to want to undermine the retail business. So I would be expect the prices to be competitive with retail.
How does this effect DLC. Will a user be able to go in there and make specific purchases on a title? I assume the installation of that title will be shared with other users ...
You know, I don't know. We haven't gotten into that level of detail. One of the things that we have looked at, it's maybe not exactly answer your question, which is: suppose I've got a micro-console. Then I go over to my friend's house and I want to play on his PC there. Can I do that? Yeah. We'll set that up so you can go and move around. Your account will not be tied to a piece of hardware. Micro-console, hit "Pause". Okay, so you're in the middle of a game, "Pause". Go fly to visit Grandma across the country and you have your laptop with you or something hook into her DSL connection. Boom, "unPause", right where you left off.
So, that whole time, that customer is taking up the resources of one of your systems?
No they're not. What we do is, none of these servers have disc drives. None of them have optical drives. We have these big RAID arrays. So the minute you get off the server, the machine state, everything that is storing your game, moves off to a RAID array and stores there. If you will, frozen in time.
You're running virtual machines then?
We're running virtual machines, that's correct.
Is all that technology proprietary? Is it VMware?
Some of it's proprietary. If there is something available that we can license, we license it. There's lot of pieces of technology in it. The servers themselves are very non-standard servers. We would have loved to go and find servers out there, like Amazon's EC2 or something, that we could just rent or something like that. But servers out there do not have GPUs. And they don't have GPU slots. They don't have the bus needed to hook up the GPU. So we had to go and work with server makers to design a custom server. And if you look at the motherboard they look different than any other server you've ever seen before. In fact, it looks closer to an extreme gamer motherboard.

I imagine the cooling has to be different too, if you've got GPUs in a server rack.
We do. Yes. The cooling's different but you have the benefit, of course, being in a big air-conditioned colo, a co-location center. So we have enough slots for a couple of GPUs, for example, if we're doing SLI or Crossfire. Then we also have a slot for a custom board that we designed. And a lot of the magic's obviously on the board. There's some silicon, there's some special software and so forth. And what that allows us to do is take the PC version of the game and we trick it, really, into thinking that what's happening is it's running in your home. And instead it's being picked up by this card and distributed with our very, very tight-looped, low-latency compression.
And, and this is the really cool thing: there are actually two compressors on it. The second compressor is not for you. It's not the live stream. We call it the media stream. It gets circulated back through the network for anybody who's spectating and for recording brag clips. There are two very different compression techniques we use because the live stream may go up and down in quality as your connection speed goes up and down, that kind of thing. Maybe the quality, the little grainy thing or whatever happens for one frame time and your eye can't see it because it goes swimming by. But suppose that you did an awesome thing and you rewind the brag clip to look at it. We don't want if you stop on that frame to see that kind of crunchy image that was sent to you because that's all your connection could take. So the media stream records gorgeous, full-quality HD things every single frame no matter what happens with your connection.
How long does it store it for?
It depends on what it is. For a brag clip, we'll keep it with your profile as long as you're a subscriber.
So if you're scrubbing back can you scrub back for every game you've ever played on On-Live since the history of the service? Or is it 10 minutes back? An hour back?
"We could record every game for every minute of game play if we needed to." |
Well right now we're recording everything because we're beta testing. If someone said something happened we may want to go back in time; "Okay, why did this crash? What led to it?" This is part of what we'll learn from external beta. How much do people want? Here's one of the things I'll give you an example. We're talking to some folks that have strategy games. Kind of Command & Conquer sorts of things. Brag clips are for like a racing game when you cross the finish line or a spectacular crash. 15 seconds works great. But a game like Command & Conquer you may want a brag clip so to speak or you may want a recording of a couple hours of game play to go and see what the guy had to set up in order to finally win this battle, a real expert player. So we may do it by game. The thing is: storage is cheap. We're just recording compressed video. The main thing we're interested in is what do people want? The capability is there. We could record every game for every minute of game play if we needed to. But obviously that would be vastly wasteful. So we'd rather figure out what is really needed.
This media chip, it's sending out this signal. People can come in and eavesdrop on your game or jump into your game. Privacy concerns! Is there going to be settings for users to disable that broadcast so that if you don't want somebody to be looking at your game they can't?
No, no, no, no, no. There will be settings for users to enable the broadcast. We assume that you want privacy. If you want to go and let other people watch you then you have to actively go and do it. So it's an opt-in, not opt-out.
So opt in?
Yeah. I mean forget that. For one thing, I don't have anything private I need to do but my gameplay is probably so bad it's an embarrassment. (laughs) So there'd be that.
Maybe anonymous viewing so nobody knows it's you.
(laughs) That's right. Or you could go and say just my friends can see me. The other thing that is built in is different levels. A lot of focus has been on the extreme gaming. Crysis Wars type of stuff. But we got Lego Batman too. This is a great thing for families. So if you set the E rating you can't spectate an M game obviously. You can only spectate E games. For example, even if you're spectating an E game you can't listen to what the person's saying. Cause we don't know whether the guy, if he's using voice over IP, we don't know whether he is saying very colorful things about Lego Batman while he's playing. But if you're an M-rated player than you can not only watch Lego Batman but you could listen to it and maybe he's got very colorful things to say that you want to hear.











Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
johnb @ Apr 2nd 2009 8:17PM
I know that Joystiq probably didn't want to go too hard on ol' Steve but if they want to really point out an issue with this they ought to point out how Time Warner is about to make a service like this and others such as streaming video and music their enemy. Time Warner Cable's top cap is to be set at 40GB a month.
http://www.insidetech.com/news/articles/4449-time-warner-cable-to-cap-bandwidth-in-more-markets
Michelobius @ Apr 3rd 2009 12:00AM
That's Time Warner, and that's potential. 40GB a month completely sucks regardless of how it affects OnLive. I think Time Warner's potential constrictions have little to do with this as a marketable concept.
Durinthal @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:04AM
My ISP - the only broadband one available here (satellite doesn't count) - has a 50 GB cap in place on their highest plan. Even at SD, that's a maximum of just over 3 hours a day without any normal use. (stick it into Google: 50 GB / 1.2 Mbps / 30 )
Taking out an estimate of 8 GB a month for normal browsing and the like, that brings the capacity down to about 2.65 hours a day on average, which I know is less time than I spend gaming currently.
Extinction @ Apr 3rd 2009 2:36PM
bluetooth only supports 7 devices not 8. they cant even get that right
Caffeine Rage @ Apr 2nd 2009 8:21PM
While I think it is a good effort, I think it lacks the one thing that really appeals to me about PC gaming. It lacks the ability to support mods.
For example, Fallout 3 can be tweaked and changed so much. That is almost feels like a different game, just with mods you can find around the internet. It may as well be a console for all it is worth at this rate.
I am interested in the tech of it, but I doubt I would play it. Should it ever come out.
BigD145 @ Apr 2nd 2009 8:47PM
Mods? Oh, you mean user created content that fixes broken systems and Day 1 release bugs. That and adding fun content that costs nothing, unlike DLC.
??? @ Apr 2nd 2009 10:31PM
Well, it's not catered towards that market. While I do agree that it sucks that mods are out of the question, how many people are there that really support mods out of this potential market (and by that I mean, help in development or actively involved through other means)? Maybe 10% at most. In the ten years since Counter-Strike became prolly the first significant mod to get official backing, mods that reach that caliber are still relatively uncommon. A lot of PC games still don't offer editing tools to make mods, and of those that do, the devs/pubs are simply neutral or ignorant of the community. That's why modding console games are still very much the final frontier: The point of the console game is to maintain a high degree of reliability (for the most part). To tweak it is a risky proposition.
BunnySlapper @ Apr 2nd 2009 8:24PM
OnLive - now with 213% more bullshit.
Ben! @ Apr 2nd 2009 10:47PM
I love the instant hostility. Such predictable little blog commenters.
BunnySlapper @ Apr 3rd 2009 12:35AM
What can I say, I live to disappoint.
Moptimus Slime (Gobot in disguise) @ Apr 2nd 2009 8:40PM
Chris, are you trying to imply that OnLive is Batman approved?
The Dark Wayne @ Apr 2nd 2009 9:54PM
No, it is not
BigD145 @ Apr 2nd 2009 8:48PM
OnLive is all about the micro transaction fees.
fffunfarm06 @ Apr 2nd 2009 9:04PM
People i believe its only sending compressed game code where only half the work is being done on their servers. you need your computer to put all the compressed code together like textures and junk and display it on ur hdtv.
i think its different than sending a live hd feed. almost like how halo records gameplay in only 5 mb, they are sending you your map positioning and compressed geometry and color and textures. i cant see it being that much of a bandwidth hog but that you would need a very fast connection, not nessacary pumping 5 mb a sec. im gonna guess and say like 500kb a sec.
it has to be something like this to work.
fffunfarm06 @ Apr 2nd 2009 9:07PM
and...
if a service like this takes off, and it does use who says companies wont accommodate to this new tech and make money off of it? thats only saying if it does use up all your gigglebytes of internet, which i dont think it will.
do i make any sense or am i missing something?
Evangel @ Apr 2nd 2009 9:14PM
...You do realize that Halo gets gameplay footage in 5MB because it just records key items, it doesn't actually record a video stream, right? It still needs to re-render the scene when you're playing that video back, it's also how you can move around the scene and see things from a different angle.
If OnLive were doing that, then you'd still need a powerful computer/console to play games, only then you'd get added lag, OMG FUN!
They are sending a HD video stream from their servers to your computer. They are not just sending positional data.
knighty (GT: ZeraKnight) @ Apr 2nd 2009 10:20PM
Teeheeheehee.....
Sorry....but your idiocy made me chuckle. =(
BunnySlapper @ Apr 3rd 2009 1:22AM
I would say you are in fact missing quite a lot.
Most games are about response & reaction time, so even a minute amount of lag can completely destroy the experience. Gamers have lived with lag issues in multiplayer games, OnLive will be bringing that to the single player experience as well.
This is not like watching HDTV here - it isn't "just" a video feed, it's a video feed that you have to be able to control to a high degree otherwise it just won't work. I don't know about you, but when I hit MENU on my Comcast remote, that shit doesn't just pop right up, there's a noticeable delay.
Hedgeson @ Apr 3rd 2009 1:11PM
fffunfarm06, did you even read the post? Did you even look at the IMAGES? It doesn't seem like you know much of what you're talking about.
They are using virtual machines and racks of video cards. That implies the game is run entirely server-side, since video cards are needed for the last step only, which is displaying the game. I suppose the video cards are dynamically assigned to the virtual machines
You DON'T need a computer, only the little client with its HDMI out, ethernet and USB ports. From the size of the client, the video stream that goes over the net could be some kind of HDMI signal, since it seems too small to have a GPU or a good cpu.
Duke @ Apr 3rd 2009 1:45PM
fffunfarm06- Just like when you posted in the "Sony questions OnLive's promises" thread, I have to say that you really don't have a clue how this tech works. Remember saying to everyone, "when it does work and does come out this holiday, i want you all hang yourselves for being idiots."
Maybe you should read these interviews and the information on this before trying to tell us all what does and does not happen in the process. Its promising tech and hopefully will work - but it sure isn't being aided by clueless people posting on blogs.
Lekko @ Apr 2nd 2009 9:14PM
Building a gaming PC is half the fun of playing PC games for me. I just wonder if I could buy an OnLive box and stream games from my home PC instead of their servers.
knighty (GT: ZeraKnight) @ Apr 2nd 2009 10:26PM
Assuming OnLive works (which it won't, although I think the idea is great and will work a decade in the future), they're not gonna be targetting people with decent rigs + consoles are they? I mean, I certainly wouldn't touch it considering I can enjoy my games in a form that isn't compressed shit with controller input latency. I mean, if I wanted that, I'd just play my Wii [/token Wii flame]. Also, 720p is pretty crap on PCs. I mean, I think most people who play PC games a fair bit are probably using at least 1440 x 900 screens by now.
aMac @ Apr 2nd 2009 9:37PM
This is going to turn out to be a bigger scam than even the gizmondo could have hoped to achieve.
The Dark Wayne @ Apr 2nd 2009 9:57PM
Look I'm not sure if i did this right, but if you're doing 2 megs a second and there's 60 seconds in a minute that's 120 megs a minute and then 60 minutes in an hour I got 7200 megs an hour. I feel like maybe im getting conversions wrong but there are 1000 megs in a gigglebyte right? so that's 7.2 gigs an hour, and that's only around 35 hours a month. Is that right? Does this guy know what his talking about?
Henry E. @ Apr 2nd 2009 10:11PM
It's 1024 mb for 1 gb but I get your point.
The Dark Wayne @ Apr 2nd 2009 10:19PM
right? like that's still nowhere near what he's saying
VSpeck @ Apr 2nd 2009 10:23PM
Once again a megabit and a megabyte are two different things. Also I honestly do think OnLive *can* work. I just don't think it will work well enough to really catch on.
Evangel @ Apr 2nd 2009 10:27PM
He's talking 2mbit, which is different to 2mb, 2mbit is about 0.25mb or 250kb. Multiplied by 3600 and you get around 900mb. His claim of HD video being about 2mbit is complete BS anyway, unless he's got a compression algorithm that's vastly better than what the best of the best have made.
knighty (GT: ZeraKnight) @ Apr 2nd 2009 10:27PM
2 megaBITS = 250 kiloBYTES.
I do wish ISPs would stop confusing the less technologically knowledgeable by using bits instead of bytes to pretend they have better connections.
The Dark Wayne @ Apr 2nd 2009 10:29PM
would anyone elaborate on the difference between megabit and megabyte for me then?
The Dark Wayne @ Apr 2nd 2009 10:29PM
oh, thanks
VSpeck @ Apr 2nd 2009 10:30PM
Sigh 1 megabyte = 8 megabits
The Dark Wayne @ Apr 2nd 2009 10:34PM
dont put "sigh" you pretentious asshole.
VSpeck @ Apr 2nd 2009 10:36PM
Oh noes Batmans angry with me!!!1 He might tries to scares me with a lame gravely voice!! Saves me!
The Dark Wayne @ Apr 2nd 2009 10:42PM
i'm not gonna do anything. I'm just letting you know what a dick you sound like. First you put "Once again" in your first post even though you hadn't said anything about it in this thread or the part 1 of this interview. And then you put "sigh" like I have to know about computers and it's so fucking hard to type 19 characters
VSpeck @ Apr 2nd 2009 10:50PM
Hey Bats! Those 19 characters are equal to 19 bytes or 152 bits!
Bissy Boy (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Apr 2nd 2009 11:25PM
Vspeck
You are being a total dick and for no good reason.
Batman
You could have just googled it.
sonicspike41 @ Apr 2nd 2009 11:28PM
Well I was going to call him on that claim, 2megabits instead of the more standard megabyte, but I agree, either way it'd be inconceivable. It'd be absolutely positively inconceivable.
To Mr. Perlman (on the subject of bits): You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
eight @ Apr 2nd 2009 10:02PM
anyone else reminded of the Phantom? no disc drive... all download... too many promises...
??? @ Apr 2nd 2009 10:37PM
Who is the copyeditor at this blog? The typos in this entire article are awful (the fact that one of "big quotes" is missing a word? Good hell). I could do a better job than this. And I mean it.
sonicspike41 @ Apr 3rd 2009 8:15AM
It would seem you either didn't look hard enough, or didn't look at all. It's kinda crammed into the middle of the right column.
Team Joystiq
Chris Grant
Editor-in-Chief, Email
James Ransom-Wiley
Managing Editor, Email
Ludwig Kietzmann
Senior Editor, Email
Andrew Yoon
East Coast Editor, Email
Randy Nelson
West Coast Editor, Email
[And the list goes on...]
If you really think you can do a better job then why not apply for such a position?
VSpeck @ Apr 2nd 2009 10:39PM
On the fly encoding transfer and decoding of HD video. I just don't see how they can do that and maintain any kind of quality.
Bissy Boy (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Apr 2nd 2009 11:26PM
just take a look ... it's in a book ... of reading rainbow
Bissy Boy (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Apr 2nd 2009 11:39PM
This was a reply I got from another commenter that helped me understand how it *could* work.
___________________________________________________________________
He's basically using compression technology to "broadcast" a stream of images similar to what TV stations do with their HDTV broadcasts. Basically, all you see on your screen is a video feed from the server and the little box they provide picks up the controller inputs on your end. Because they're not broadcasting the "game" but just the "video feedback" of the game, the issue of latency only factors in during peak congestion (working hours) and is also dependent on your broadband service (subscription and quality).
kevinski @ Apr 2nd 2009 11:59PM
He's referring more to the act of encoding the video. I'm still very skeptical about OnLive's ability to transfer controller inputs to the OnLive service, render the game play, encode the video feed, then stream it back to the player. I mean, this is supposed to happen in fractions of a second? How?
How different/similar are Internet access and television access? I realize that they're both delivered through the same connections much of the time, but I just don't understand how cable television service doesn't suffer at times when cable Internet service would. Does television somehow have a high priority? It'd make more sense to deliver the feed in a manner similar to Comcast On-Demand.
Bissy Boy (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Apr 3rd 2009 2:20AM
My main concern would also be the controller input lag. I can't see a scenario where there isn't noticeable input lag beyond what is considered acceptable.
sonicspike41 @ Apr 3rd 2009 8:09AM
@bissyboy and kevinski:
Video games are different from movies. Movies and television shows are all "pre-rendered" if you will. They are pretty much like bitmap images shown one after another.
A video game would require that the next image never be completely known in advance. It's not moving through a predetermined series of images, it's moving through an always evolving world. That at least explains why video games would not work in a live streaming environment.
As for streaming movies vs. cable/satellite TV. That one I am not sure of. You'd have to ask someone who knows more than I do.
DSL = uses higher frequencies when traveling over a phone line while telephones use the lower frequencies to travel.
PeterF @ Apr 2nd 2009 11:35PM
Why are people reporting on this? It won't take off because any game other than board games or gimmicky games can not have controller input. 100ms is the least it would take and that is way too much.
cheese @ Apr 3rd 2009 12:40AM
I smell epic fail.
Nik @ Apr 3rd 2009 5:18AM
"As these games themselves age, we'll see if the publishers want to keep them around, then it's up to them, really."
So what happens when EA decides Madden 2010 isn't worth keeping around anymore, do I lose my game just like that? I can hear the drool rolling off the execs lips:
"Ha! then they'll have no choice but to buy Madden 2013, because the old copy disappears, it's perfect!"
I've also got an issue about how prices will be "competitive" with retail and how they don't want to "undermine" Gamestop, EB, etc. As far as I can tell if they can remove our games from their service, we can't sell them back, and we have to access their servers to play them, we're hardly "buying" them at all, but almost renting them from the publishers and OnLive people. Shouldn't these games be cheaper than they are at retail?
I understand the benefits of OnLive and digital distribution, but from my perspective it's starting to look like the cons outweigh the pros.