What is OnLive?
At The Game Developers Conference 2009 is a remarkable new service announced. With OnLive lots of the new and beautifull games can be played on every pc and TV. It may sound a bit too good to be true, but it really seems to be reality.
OnLive works as a typical video stream service. The games are on a very powerful server that quickly streams the game to your TV or computer. Because the game is playing on the server you need no hardware. The oldest laptop could, for example a game like Crysis, play through OnLive. By OnLive will the need of high-end PCs therefore largely decrease.
For computers, a special computer program will be available. If you want to play games on a TV, a box will be purchased, which according to the first messages will cost less than the current consoles.
OnLive will work with a subscription system. For example, it is possible for gamesr to hire for temporary play or just to buy so you have permanent access. Publishers such as Atari, Eidos, Codemasters, EA, Epic, Take-Two, THQ, Ubisoft and Warner Bros have already indicated to put their games on OnLive.
Because OnLive works via the Internet there are a lot of pitfalls as well. . Not every country in the world has an Internet connection that can send so much data in a short time. OnLive.inc has indicated that this problem , because the extremely strong servers where the games on it will not be present, but the danger is of course, always there for some people. In countries like Belgium, there is a download limit on Internet, so you can't play a lot of games.
On the exhibition floor of the GDC is now possible to play games on OnLive. The expectations are that OnLive appears this summer as beta version. The final product should be released end this year.
AWESOME UBER FAT SHIT LIKE PWN!!!!! I WANT THAT SO BAD.
Full Version: Onlive
The fail with that is you don't get the high quality that is provided on Crysis without spending a fortune getting the bandwidth for it. Then you have to consider the lag time YOU WILL ALWAYS HAVE.
Just did a bit of research - looks awsome and I love the idea. Definately a breakthrough in gaming, but part of me tells me that this is going to cost a hefty amount to have and maintain..
Brilliant idea in theory, but what about in practice? Call be a sceptic but I just don't see it as technically feasible for now. The main issues:
1. Encoding - any time it takes to encode it will mean more latency, especially at high screen resolutions.
2. Transfer - even sound-only things like Ventrillo and Skype seem to have problems keeping up with the throughput and lost packets and suchlike, and they are lossy compression. Getting it to run smooth 100% of the time sounds hard, and if its laggy or unreliable then it could ruin some games (and would detract from all games).
3. Peaks - they'd need to have the capacity for the peak times (e.g. when the next big game is released) which means a lot of spare capacity the rest of the time.
4. Decoding - it's not a total solution for old computers, since they'd need to be fairly decent to be able to decompress the video and display it quickly.
5. Cost - I'd expect their bandwidth cost to be through the roof, not to mention the other costs.
6. ISPS - Surely this could be enemy number one when it comes to ISP traffic shaping, and the increase in bandwidth usage could lead to more ISPs going for transfer limits.
The concept of a "thin client" is nothing new, but I just don't see how they've made it work gaming over the Internet. But hey, technology is all about doing the impossible and I can't wait to try it!
1. Encoding - any time it takes to encode it will mean more latency, especially at high screen resolutions.
2. Transfer - even sound-only things like Ventrillo and Skype seem to have problems keeping up with the throughput and lost packets and suchlike, and they are lossy compression. Getting it to run smooth 100% of the time sounds hard, and if its laggy or unreliable then it could ruin some games (and would detract from all games).
3. Peaks - they'd need to have the capacity for the peak times (e.g. when the next big game is released) which means a lot of spare capacity the rest of the time.
4. Decoding - it's not a total solution for old computers, since they'd need to be fairly decent to be able to decompress the video and display it quickly.
5. Cost - I'd expect their bandwidth cost to be through the roof, not to mention the other costs.
6. ISPS - Surely this could be enemy number one when it comes to ISP traffic shaping, and the increase in bandwidth usage could lead to more ISPs going for transfer limits.
The concept of a "thin client" is nothing new, but I just don't see how they've made it work gaming over the Internet. But hey, technology is all about doing the impossible and I can't wait to try it!
QUOTE (Ren @ Mar 29 2009, 12:17 PM) 
Brilliant idea in theory, but what about in practice? Call be a sceptic but I just don't see it as technically feasible for now. The main issues:
1. Encoding - any time it takes to encode it will mean more latency, especially at high screen resolutions.
2. Transfer - even sound-only things like Ventrillo and Skype seem to have problems keeping up with the throughput and lost packets and suchlike, and they are lossy compression. Getting it to run smooth 100% of the time sounds hard, and if its laggy or unreliable then it could ruin some games (and would detract from all games).
3. Peaks - they'd need to have the capacity for the peak times (e.g. when the next big game is released) which means a lot of spare capacity the rest of the time.
4. Decoding - it's not a total solution for old computers, since they'd need to be fairly decent to be able to decompress the video and display it quickly.
5. Cost - I'd expect their bandwidth cost to be through the roof, not to mention the other costs.
6. ISPS - Surely this could be enemy number one when it comes to ISP traffic shaping, and the increase in bandwidth usage could lead to more ISPs going for transfer limits.
The concept of a "thin client" is nothing new, but I just don't see how they've made it work gaming over the Internet. But hey, technology is all about doing the impossible and I can't wait to try it!
1. Encoding - any time it takes to encode it will mean more latency, especially at high screen resolutions.
2. Transfer - even sound-only things like Ventrillo and Skype seem to have problems keeping up with the throughput and lost packets and suchlike, and they are lossy compression. Getting it to run smooth 100% of the time sounds hard, and if its laggy or unreliable then it could ruin some games (and would detract from all games).
3. Peaks - they'd need to have the capacity for the peak times (e.g. when the next big game is released) which means a lot of spare capacity the rest of the time.
4. Decoding - it's not a total solution for old computers, since they'd need to be fairly decent to be able to decompress the video and display it quickly.
5. Cost - I'd expect their bandwidth cost to be through the roof, not to mention the other costs.
6. ISPS - Surely this could be enemy number one when it comes to ISP traffic shaping, and the increase in bandwidth usage could lead to more ISPs going for transfer limits.
The concept of a "thin client" is nothing new, but I just don't see how they've made it work gaming over the Internet. But hey, technology is all about doing the impossible and I can't wait to try it!
I have one in my room, im on live messenger right now!
I posted this on the OcUK graphics card forum where people spend insane amounts of money getting the most uber PC, testing a game and then bragging about it on the forum (posting it on their signature and making a thread about their new setup)... didn't really bode well :D flame wars and stereotyping me as a drone because im in the community that actually LIKES to play games rather than (buy,test,brag) :D
Their main argument was that 720p isn't good enough, especially for the lag/latency issues surrounded by it... but hey there are some technological advancements, even if its not up to scratch
IF it works, it will be beast!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.