OnLive: Cloud Gaming is a-go.

[MyNameDidntFit]

http://www.onlive.com/images/ol_logo_sml.png

For those who aren't aware, OnLive (http://www.onlive.com/) is a cloud gaming service that was announced at GDC last year and is launching, well, now. Cloud gaming is a concept (or, I guess, a reality, now) that basically means that a central hub essentially runs the game, taking the brunt of the system requirements, and then sends the game digitally to the player. That might be a bit confusing so... cloud gaming means that all you need to play games on the service is a monitor, keyboard, mouse and an Internet connection. Cool, right?

Anyway. I'm making this thread because OnLive is launching today (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/5861/onlive_turned_on.php) -- the 17th of June -- in the US. They're easing into it with only a smallish (around 10,000, IIRC) number of people being in on the 'beta' so that they can get any kinks worked out. Now, I don't know about you guys, but this intrigues me because, well, face it, it's a bloody amazing piece of technical wizardry.

The best thing that I'm seeing from it is what they're saying about the latency... they're predicting that, on cable services, the worst case scenario for latency is going to be about 25 milliseconds. Now, they've done a lot of talking about how they're achieving this and, to be honest, I can't explain it nearly as well as CEO Steve Perley can, so if you're interested in the how, you can feel free to read through his [rather extensive] interview with Gamasutra (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/5861/onlive_turned_on.php) to hear all about it.

OK. So, the other best thing I'm hearing about this is what they're calling 'MicroConsoles'. Now, basically, these MicroConsoles are a console to plug into your TV and access the OnLive platform. Why is that so awesome? Because this whole system, if it runs smoothly and everyone loves it, could lead to a massive redirection of resources from consoles to 'PC' gaming. Think about it. Why do people buy consoles over PCs? They're cheap, easy and don't need to be upgraded. OnLive removes the physical requirement of having a gaming-capable PC from the world of PC gaming -- all you need is a decent net connection.

*deep breath*

I'm excited. Not quite holding my breath and trying desperately to stop myself exploding kind of excitement, but the kind of excitement that's in the air before a storm. Only this storm will rain win and awesome. But what kind of awesome? Well, OnLive will be launching with 21 big name titles including Mass Effect 2, Assassin's Creed II, Dragon Age: Origins, Just Cause 2, Batman: Arkham Asylum and Borderlands.

Actually... I might very well hold my breath for a bit. I'm curiouser than the proverbial soon-to-be-dead cat about how this will go and I damned well want it to go swimmingly.


... alright. Enough from me. Anyone else feel the need to spout their excitement, hatred, anger, happiness or otherwise?





Oh! Right. Here's Gamasutra's interview with OnLive CEO Steve Perley (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/5861/onlive_turned_on.php).

[Jason]

I can't get excited about this. I want to - oh god, do I want to... but I can't see the logistics working. It's just fine and dandy if you live in a major population centre, but what happens if you're a little out of the way, or in a country where the infrastructure simply isn't there yet outside the major cities (please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is a bit of a problem in Australia? I seem to remember an Aussie ranting about something similar to this...)

I just can't shake the feeling that the guys who are in charge of this don't actually realise there are still large parts of the 'first world' that either don't get Broadband at all or get 512kb/s at best. Promising a ping of 25 with Cable services is all well and good, but what about the huge percentage of us that don't have Cable and aren't likely to get it in the near future?

Don't get me wrong, the concept is brilliant - no upgrades, no piracy, easy multiplayer gaming... it's taken all the downsides out of PC gaming. I just don't think the infrastructure is there to support the idea and bring them in enough money to expand the service. I'd love to be proved wrong though.

[Lance]

The idea is there and is fantastic definitely. But the big problem is, yeah, internet connections in places that aren't the U.S or U.K or such. This won't get much of a run in Australia at the moment because, let's face it, we're back-water in terms of 'net connections.

When we can get cheap, unlimited broadband - yeah, fantastic - but at the moment when you pay $50-60 a month for 20gb data, you're not going to do this.

Secondly - what if I want to play a game twice? A lot of games these days are designed to play through multiple times (Good and Evil endings). Essentially I'd be downloading the game twice to play it - when I can just play it.

Who does this really help? People that can afford cheap, unlimited broadband, but can't afford top-notch computers to play the latest games (since the major idea behind this is to take the system requirements away from the customer - if you have a top-notch computer, what's the point really. Pay the money for a 1 time download and play it whenever you want without a 'net connection)

However - I think we'll see companies designing games around the cloud system, so maybe we'll see a big jump in the graphics of games, since designers at the moment have to take into consideration the customer's computers before putting a game on the market.

There's a lot of pro's and con's, but we'll see how it goes.

[MyNameDidntFit]

I'm excited about this as a concept. It wont happen overnight and the developers know that and, to be honest, I'm pretty sure they know exactly what kind of Internet connections people have and they know there is a market for this -- that much is shown by the sheer massive amount of interest they received for their 'beta' sign-ups.

If you read the interview, Perley speaks at length about latency and the way they're working the data transfer and it's a sound system. Now, obviously people without high-speed unlimited bandwidth net aren't going to be able to utilise this to its potential, but they're not the target audience.

The only real con to this is that I can foresee there being a drop in visual quality due to compression of data. If they find a way to get around that and allow users to play in the full awesomeness of resolutions like 1920x1080 I'll be pleasantly surprised.

But, in all honesty, if you can't be excited about the concept at work behind this... well, then I'm not sure what's wrong with you.

[Lance]

Didn't say I'm not excited :p Its a great idea in concept, and I hope it goes as planned - I'm just not their target audience :D

[MyNameDidntFit]

Honestly, that's one of the reasons I'm excited -- services like this that require better Internet infrastructure are able to serve as prompts to upgrade. For example, Say OnLive wants to do something in Australia, they're going to look to set up a deal with Telstra or iiNet or someone -- in doing this they're going to provide incentive to the ISPs to provide better suited Broadband plans. Going further, if services like this become popular enough it creates a massive surge in the demand for better infrastructure. Now, I'm being optimistic, obviously, because our government are a bunch of incompetent asshats, but it's theory and it makes sense.

Anyway, for you British lot, Jason, OnLive is scheduled for a 2011 launch :)

[Archangel]

However - I think we'll see companies designing games around the cloud system, so maybe we'll see a big jump in the graphics of games, since designers at the moment have to take into consideration the customer's computers before putting a game on the market.

That's an issue that could just encounter so royal pooch-screwing, actually.

For instance, the folks at your local OnLive server hub thingie need to have the hardware to run the game you want to play. But they also need to have the hardware to run the games that 40,000 other people want to play. That there is a serious load of hardware requirements, and then you need to ensure every system is running smoothly, nothing's overheating, etcetera. Very costly--at the sort of level that will take these folks some time to raise all the cash needed to provide to the number of gamers in the States.

And yeah, for people like me in Aussieland, that means they not only have to provide all the hardware, but all the network infrastructure too. Which is damn costly if you want to get the whole of Aus, seeing as how we have a whole bunch of not much all over the place. Being optimistic, I'd say we'd only get the major cities covered, and all the towns just out of the way will suffer.

But, I digress. Point is, OnLive will need alot of money to get this done, which they won't have until they get customers, for which they need the hardware. Basically, slow progress. On top of that, though, is the hardware manufacturers themselves. NVidia, ATI, Intel, AMD and all those folks that make our CPUs and GPUs--for PCs and consoles alike--are all going to be losing their market to... well, all the folks that buy PCs and consoles alike. In fact, the only market they'll have is in the game developers or OnLive.

For starters, that's either going to mean an increased demand, which means hardware manufacturers will suffer losses, or OnLive will get the funding to buy up enough hardware from them, which will mean market bias. I mean, if you are the single gaming authority in town, and at the point of purchasing all your systems ATI and Intel happen to be leading in GPU and CPU power, then you're going to make all your purchases from ATI and Intel. NVidia and AMD, meanwhile, will have no sales at all.

Now, I'm no leading expert on market trends and whatnot. But sufficed to say, if OnLive gets the popularity vote it's shooting for, all kinds of shit could well hit the fan. Which also means all those fools in country town and the like, or with poor infrastructure, will get slapped in the face by OnLive. Hard.