«

[Ian]

A few people have called OnLive a hoax or early April Fools joke, so it's interesting to note that a website called PALGN have calculated whether or not it actually possible to play games from such a huge distance. They have a list of comfortable response times for certain games, and then use estimates for lag due to distance, hardware and encoding/decoding (oh, and the speed of light!):

It’s possible. Just.

Moving the console to the cloud under OnLive’s architecture could be expected to add under 40ms to the response time. This is 25% of our maximum acceptable response time (180ms) and 40% of our “good” response time (100ms). Clearly some games could get away with this additional response time without too much trouble, but some of the high-end console games would have problems.

OnLive appears to be using entirely PC hardware in their architecture. High powered PCs (and optimised game code) could reduce this latency even further. From the analysis above plugging in existing consoles to the OnLive network probably would not work for many games, even if the manufacturers agree.

This article is well worth a read:
http://palgn.com.au/article.php?id=13939

What do you think, is OnLive for real?

[kazenoshinobi2]

Of course it's real. The concept is great, service, no loading times... the controller is so-so.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by kazenoshinobi2

Of course it's real. The concept is great, service, no loading times... the controller is so-so.

Have you tried it yet, or are basing your thoughts about the controller on the photos?

Cloud gaming is a fantastic idea, and no doubt the way things will be in a few years time - I have to admit I didn't expect something like this so soon (mainly because of broadband connection stability/lag).

[kazenoshinobi2]

I haven't try it yet... I would like to try it on a near future.

[Mickey]

Remains to be seen how well it will work in the real world, I guess the beta will be the proof.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Mickey

Remains to be seen how well it will work in the real world, I guess the beta will be the proof.

Yep, if that goes well and convinces people like us, I can see this service going HUGE!

[interestedbutskeptical]

Too many questions to be answered to know whether it will work or last.

1. If the subscriber purchases a game via OnLive, and say MS uses updates to its OS's that restrict OnLive from being used on a Windows/Vista PC(considering MS is a competitor and will not go down without a dirty fight) and almost identical stonewall approaches are made by hardware manufacturers alike, then OnLive goes belly up, what happens to all that money the subscriber spent on these games?

2. Consoles are supporting 1080p, are there if any plans to support 1080p?

3. Costs of subscriptions, plus for a 720p res, paying your broadband provider an average 49.99(per month) plus a basic connection fee for a higher bandwidth(that is if your provider doesnt have a cap on data usage ect), adds up to much more than you would pay for a console itself plus in the 360's case a Live monthly or yearly sub fee.

4. My main issue with it is: There is no perfect broadband service that is completely stable and never goes down. So without storage of the games you the consumer is paying more than likely the same price for a game(that you physically buy and can physically touch and have on hand as you please) through OnLive as you would at a retailer, what happens when you do not have access to the broadband connection? It's not like you can just pop in the game you bought because you dont physically have the game you bought through OnLive.

5. This will cause an increase of platforms paying top dollar to gain exclusive rights to a title being on their systems so how will OnLive deal with that. Halo, Killzone, God of War, Zelda, ect. Will we really say: "it's okay I dont want to play these great games anyways"?

Trust me when I tell you I will definitely give OnLive a try, but I just really cannot emphasize it enough, Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo will not lay down for everyone to run over them, it's not going to happen.

As I said before expect Windows/Vista emplementing changes that will prohibit OnLive to be used on a Windows/Vista based PC. Expect Sony and MS to buy up IP's left and right to gain exclusivity to top titles(especially titles concerned with sequals or with a planned trilogy/saga).
I'm sure MS already isnt taking it very well that the OnLive controller is nearly a clone of the 360's controller. And as friendly as Nintendo seems, OnLive is a threat to all consoles and PC hardware manufacturers, gloves will come off.

Like I said before I get flamed, I will be giving OnLive an open-minded arms wide open try.

[Ian]

Some very interesting points there! I do wonder effect this will have on broadband prices... because as you say many people have a download limit which will be easily reached.

Originally Posted by interestedbutskeptical

1. If the subscriber purchases a game via OnLive, and say MS uses updates to its OS's that restrict OnLive from being used on a Windows/Vista PC(considering MS is a competitor and will not go down without a dirty fight) and almost identical stonewall approaches are made by hardware manufacturers alike, then OnLive goes belly up, what happens to all that money the subscriber spent on these games?

This question I can answer, as it would be illegal for MS to prevent OnLive from being used - so there's no worry about that. The US and EU would come down on Microsoft like a ton of bricks if they tried it (which they never would anyway). If something else caused OnLive to cease trading, then that is a very valid point about what would happen. I guess if they proceed down the monthly subscription route then it doesn't really matter though (apart from the initial hardware costs, if you opted for the Microconsole).

Originally Posted by interestedbutskeptical

Like I said before I get flamed, I will be giving OnLive an open-minded arms wide open try.

No one will get flamed here I think lots of us are sceptical, but hopeful that it can be done

[interestedbutskeptical]

It wouldnt be illegal if with an update MS stated that using OnLive on Windows/Vista that the consumer would be violating the EULA. Regardless competitor is derived from the the word compete so as long as it's within the bounds of MS, Sony, Nintendo protecting their investments and products interests then there isnt much anyone can do about making it hard for OnLive to work. MS put up with a lot of junk when they released the 1st XBOX.

[Mickey]

Originally Posted by interestedbutskeptical

2. Consoles are supporting 1080p, are there if any plans to support 1080p?

I believe the games are always rendered on the servers at full 1080p, and then either sent at that resolution, or downscaled during the encoding process if you mini-console or browser plugin is set to standard definition.

Originally Posted by interestedbutskeptical

5. This will cause an increase of platforms paying top dollar to gain exclusive rights to a title being on their systems so how will OnLive deal with that. Halo, Killzone, God of War, Zelda, ect. Will we really say: "it's okay I dont want to play these great games anyways"?

From what I saw during the presentation, it would appear the only games which will be on the service are games which have been given a windows port, which tend to be multi-platform games. There was no mention of any PlayStation, XBox, or Nintendo exclusive games on the service, which makes sense as the servers are likely to be standard Windows based servers, and the developers for the other system's exclusive games are unlikely to port their games over just for OnLive.

I don't believe OnLive is going to be the end of the console or disk based/download games, but it could be an alternative for people who dont wish to upgrade their pc's just to play the latest games.