New Tech To Revolutionize Gaming?

[Margalis]

Yeah I have similar thoughts that there is not much market for this.

Everyone can already play Facebook games, browser-based games, etc. For big console-style games the trend is mostly towards higher graphical fidelity, bigger display devices, etc. The next generation of consoles will probably output 1080p for real. In that sort of environment it's hard for me to imagine playing with input lag and video compression artifacts.

The high-level pitch for this seems to be that you can play Crysis on a netbook, but how many people want to do that? People who want to play Crysis are graphics whores and tech heads, exactly the people who don't need this service and would reject its compromises.

[Pringles]

Question anyone get in their beta?

For mods:

You may disclose that you are a participant in the Beta, but you may not discuss with or disclose to any third party any information you learn through the Beta.

yes

[schild]

Are they doing an invite system?

[Pringles]

Are they doing an invite system?

No, I think they are only selecting based on distance from the data centers. (I live in San Francisco)

If they do I will report back for sure.

And for anyone interested in OnLive I would direct you to this video from previous in the thread, best overview I've seen.

[Venkman]

Has this become any more realistic? Still seems like a great pitch for a new video compression and medium-agnostic play. Both have potential unto themselves. But the internet itself still feels like it stands in the way.

His comments about having worked out deals with all the ISPs to presumably get primo connections still doesn't address anything beyond regional routing. He could blow through his 80ms round trip cap with five hops much less the usual 10+.

Plus, all of the big games he showed still look like they're running at 10-15 fps at best. Perfectly fine for Peggle. Not so much for Crysis.

I'd love to see this work. I just don't see how it can once all the people they hope show up will bang on it.

[TripleDES]

I'd like to see the business model behind this. Because it requires a rather powerful server per customer. You could cheat by running multicores with tons of memory and multiple video cards, but I don't see today's x86 processors doing multiple streams at WVGA or higher in realtime in an efficient video codec, next to already running multiple games. Then it'll require a fat pipe and some serious network equipment. Several hundred kbits per game instance vs. a few ten kbits per multiplayer game connection (in the case of multiplayer games). Plus, the US ISPs are probably getting another shit fit, since they're giving Google already hell for Youtube.

--edit: Actually, since it probably has to fit in 1U or 2U, the multiple graphics cards idea is probably out again. WDDM2, which allows GPU resource scheduling and virtualization, isn't available yet. That takes at least Windows 8.

[Venkman]

He claims in the video that when they started they had some crazy setup per user, like dual Xenon Quad cores at about $5,000 each, so about $10,000 per end user. Then somehow over time they were able to reduce this to about $25 per end user.

I really am interested in whether this is in negative ping land or if there's something here. I imagine eventually it will be like this, but there just seems to be too much internet in the way to make it viable, even if everyone got Fiber Optics into their house. Unless they create some type of limitless-range ansible, I just don't see how this can work without a server in every neighborhood and local p2p matches only.

[Samwise]

negative ping

This.

[BitWarrior]

I can confirm I am in the beta.

[AutomaticZen]

Beta Review from some guy at some tech website.  He yoinked it from a friend, so he's outside of their testing area.  It's about what you'd expect.  Video included.

[schild]

They doing invites yet?

[Ghambit]

Perlman is right that this is the way "it should be done."  But, I dont agree with his application at this time.  The net really has to change itself to support what he's trying to do.  This whole "cloud culture" crap that's pervading all these think tanks lately is all nice and dandy, but good luck trying to cut the middlemen out of the datastream.  The net's too regulated, not wireless enough, and way too brokered.  Half the ping he's trying to conquer actually comes from guys just like him.  Quite literally, the net would have to go back to its roots - packet radio.  Good luck with that.  Works in a good sci-fi novel but not in the RL of Wall Street.

Now, where this service would do well is a setup like Trion World Network (MMOs, interactive TV, episodic adventure gaming, etc.).  Take your game anywhere and play it on any device with a small client.  Since everything is server-side, the world becomes totally maleable real-time.  Pings dont matter as much, because you're essentially playing a turn-based game.  

[Velorath]

So... it launches June 19th, $14.95 a month.

[AutomaticZen]

So... it launches June 19th, $14.95 a month.

However, it was a bit unclear as to what the service fee would buy you -- it's obviously access to OnLive and to all of its features (gamer tag, friends, spectator viewing, free demos, etc.), but in terms of the actual games there will be charges for buying and renting them, and we don't yet know what those rates will be.

Even if it was amazing, I just tuned out right there.

[Ghambit]

Anyone else think this tech. is more suited for developing countries?
Maybe a gaming-fanatical place like Brazil perhaps where the import taxes pretty much make it impossible for anyone to buy good hardware (one could buy this in lieu of a console).  I could see onLive working there, but in America where most every household already has a next-gen console and/or high-end PC, not so sure.  Might've been good for travelers, but the ping on wireless is still too high and most public wi-fi sights arent reliable enough.

I'm still scratching my head with this one.

[Sheepherder]

Do they have the amount of people with sufficient internet bandwidth to support this? (Likely no)

[Nightblade]

So... it launches June 19th, $14.95 a month.

The heavy says : NO!

[Kageru]

Monthly + Rental fee, 1Mb / second bandwidth, 720p gaming and latency issues? Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. Especially when it is taking them a lot of server resources to offer a service few people will care about.

[HaemishM]

So... it launches June 19th, $14.95 a month.

However, it was a bit unclear as to what the service fee would buy you -- it's obviously access to OnLive and to all of its features (gamer tag, friends, spectator viewing, free demos, etc.), but in terms of the actual games there will be charges for buying and renting them, and we don't yet know what those rates will be.

Even if it was amazing, I just tuned out right there.

Yep. What's the fucking point if you have to pay a fee for every game you play?

[TripleDES]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir4B0rgta0Y

Apparently you have to BUY the damn games and still pay a subscription fee. What in the fuck!

[Engels]

Heh, you think that's fail. Check out this OnLive demo on the iPad