# Onlive - Revolutionize PC Gaming?



## lilEmber (Mar 24, 2009)

Onlive is basically useing your web browser to play games. You can buy or rent games in the OnLive library, the severs actually play the games and send the images to you through the browser and you input the controls, the server does to computing and sends back the image if the game.

If you want to play on your TV and not your PC you can get a MicroConsole that sends the image to your TV instead (through HDMI or other means). You don't need to buy the MicroConsole if you want to play on PC or Mac, that's only for TVs.

So basically somebody with a shitty PC or a Mac can play crysis on the highest settings and get no issues, I think this is amazing for casual players but you won't be able to get full quality through stream, basically your image will be of lower resolution and quality than if you had it on you PC itself. But on the TV this is amazing, I might even get this myself depending how good it actually is. Imagine playing any game at all with no installation, just released turn on the TV, purchase the game and play to your hearts content instantly.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Videos:
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/47079.html
http://www.gametrailers.com/game/11029.html


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 24, 2009)

wow, sounds pretty cool! we will see how this will work and whether there really wont be any lag at all.
but the idea to play any game on any PC or on a TV screen sounds really amazing, if this really works well ill probably check it out!


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 24, 2009)

They say there's no lag on TV's with a 1-2mbit connection, and on PC's (with higher resolutions being the reason) no lag at about 5mbit connections.

If this works, I might get this instead of a new videocard.


----------



## ADF (Mar 24, 2009)

Looks like they are releasing new information on this. I heard about it a while back. They have been theorizing the idea for years but latency and Internet connections were just not ready, it will be interesting to watch them try to apply it.

What I personally find very amusing about the GDC announcement is it was done on March the 23rd, the exact day I handed in my assignment on a cloud computing based laptop.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 24, 2009)

crysis on a macbook on full details and high resolution? wow, thats impressive^^
looks like the service is working like a charm, we will have to see how they handle a bigger amount of users.
but i bet they took that into consideration. they wont release a service that depends so heavily on bandwidth without having a proper connection and proper servers


----------



## Teco (Mar 24, 2009)

Thats pretty kickass. If i do say so myself. Applying this could mean a new type of next gen.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 24, 2009)

A novel concept.

Won't work, though. At minimum, you're looking at a 50-100ms ping to that service, and that's a ping packet. Sending things like keyboard input, mouse input (especially), joystick input, and more would completely obliterate it. He talks about how they spent seven years developing "technology to make it work", but it's infeasible. Seriously. It's a brute-force algorithm that's basically running the game, compressing the video/audio on the fly (ouch! video quality will suffer greatly) that shoves that data down the tubes and onto your computer screen. Some games will be OK, but things like first person shooters, racing games, and anything that needs fast reaction will be completely useless. On the plus side, multiplayer games won't suffer from as much lag, since they will (supposedly) run in the LAN at the data centre. The biggest problem is going to be input lag. Even a few milliseconds is more than enough to throw someone off, and in a frame-sensitive fighter game where everything you do is sensitive down to each individual frame? Impossible.

He also talks about 360 games... Where are you going to get a 360 controller that will plug into that microconsole? A Games for Windows 360 Controller? Ouch. If you already have a 360, that's a slap in the face. They do say that they can handle Bluetooth, though, so a PS3 controller wouldn't be so bad.

I can see MMORPG's being very good on this platform, however, where the pace is slow.

Who wants some "Buffering... Please wait..." messages while playing Killzone 2 online?


----------



## ADF (Mar 24, 2009)

Frankly even if they did somehow get it to work it still wouldn't interest me. PC gaming allows you to customize the experience to your personal tastes; such as tweaking and modding as well as the graphical quality. This is essentially a console like experience for PC games turned into a service, if I wanted a console experience I wouldn't be a PC gamer.


----------



## Doubler (Mar 24, 2009)

Not interested myself. I like to customize my experience. Modding, tweaking and such things. Besides, I like physical copies of my games. I don't want to be completely reliable on the continued existance, quality, etc. of such a service or my internet connection.
For that matter, bandwidth isn't exactly free or in limitless supply. I really wonder how that works.

I actually dread the idea that they'll get this to work. Like Steam or GfWL it will probably end up being forced on us.


----------



## Furlop (Mar 24, 2009)

As a friend of mine said..

_"Lag, it's not just for multiplayer anymore!"_


----------



## ADF (Mar 25, 2009)

This has turned into quite an amusing topic over at GameSpot, arguing got so fierce they had to create a dedicated thread and lock all those outside it on sight :lol:.

It's the usual sceptical arguing but for those that believe in it they're trying to decide who is this a bigger threat to, PC or console gaming.

As I said earlier if it did somehow work I wouldn't consider it a threat to PC gaming, at least not to the PC gamers who are on PC precisely because they prefer it over the console experience.


----------



## Kuraggo (Mar 25, 2009)

This is going to work.. when we all have 100 Gb connections. I think it's still too early for things like this, because with actual connections/technology it's going to lag all over the place. Time will tell.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 25, 2009)

Runefox said:


> A novel concept.
> 
> Won't work, though. At minimum, you're looking at a 50-100ms ping to that service, and that's a ping packet. Sending things like keyboard input, mouse input (especially), joystick input, and more would completely obliterate it. He talks about how they spent seven years developing "technology to make it work", but it's infeasible. Seriously. It's a brute-force algorithm that's basically running the game, compressing the video/audio on the fly (ouch! video quality will suffer greatly) that shoves that data down the tubes and onto your computer screen. Some games will be OK, but things like first person shooters, racing games, and anything that needs fast reaction will be completely useless. On the plus side, multiplayer games won't suffer from as much lag, since they will (supposedly) run in the LAN at the data centre. The biggest problem is going to be input lag. Even a few milliseconds is more than enough to throw someone off, and in a frame-sensitive fighter game where everything you do is sensitive down to each individual frame? Impossible.
> 
> ...




Well they have their own controller, actually.
As well other really neat features such as the recording and spectating, I doubt there will be much lag issues on TV's at 720p which is what HDTV programming is at and that's lag free.

I don't think lag will be the issue here, I'm thinking keeping these servers upgraded with enough of them to supply the demand.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 25, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Well they have their own controller, actually.


Which does look oddly similar to the 360 controller, if a little misshapen.



> I doubt there will be much lag issues on TV's at 720p which is what HDTV programming is at and that's lag free.


Uh. No. Standard analogue broadcasts have a 1-2 second head-start on digital broadcasts, and that's standard-definition. Also note that digital content (including HDTV) is heavily compressed, and what you're looking at is very far from the original source material. Block and ring artifacts are noticeable even on standard TV sets, and basically what you'd be looking at is something similar to 720p Gametrailers videos. Which aren't terrible, but still have bad artifacting, worse than I'd like to see on my games. On the plus side, anti-aliasing wouldn't be necessary.

There will be lag introduced by the rendering of the screen - this is always the case, and input lag can be bad in some games, especially where VSync is turned off. Then, there's lag introduced by the step of encoding it into video and yet more in the step of compressing it. Then, it has to be sent down the wire to your screen, which is an instantaneous addition of at least 50ms of latency regardless of your network connection. Finally, it has to be decoded by your PC and displayed on your screen. The claims of "1ms of lag, imperceptible" are inaccurate at best, and outright lies at worst. Add in that your inputs have to travel that same 50ms back to the server, and you've easily got at least 100ms of lag in your controls alone, even without factoring anything else in. There is simply no way possible to reduce this time down to the claimed 1ms, or anywhere nearly imperceptible levels. This simply won't do for anything other than games like WoW.

Plus, remember all those times where Gametrailers or another service streaming media required buffering even on our 10mbps connection? If the latency is to be kept as low as possible, that means minimal buffering (as in, none; Buffering adds latency equal to the length of the buffer), which means at those times, it will either skip or disconnect altogether.


----------



## Kryn (Mar 25, 2009)

I totally don't believe this will work, i totally KNOW it won't be lag free. Runefox explained it well, this is impossible. Maybe when we have quantum computers it will be.


----------



## Sunny_Otter (Mar 25, 2009)

What kind of bandwidth would they be talking about for this? Would places with bandwidth restrictions be an issue?

It's an interesting idea, although it wouldn't be something I'd want myself, PC gaming isn't my preference unless it'd spruce up graphics in MMORPGs.


----------



## BloodYoshi (Mar 26, 2009)

Well, this gets big points for being accessible, and hell, if they can make these work without compromising visuals and resolution too much, then I'll totally be on board.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 26, 2009)

Sunny_Otter said:


> What kind of bandwidth would they be talking about for this? Would places with bandwidth restrictions be an issue?



They're saying that a minimum of a 1.5mbps connection is going to be required, and that would be for standard-definition (640x480@~30fps). A 5.0mbps connection is required for the full 720p (1280x720@60fps) resolution.

This brings to mind another issue; The game will be running at 1280x720 at all times, yet, when the bandwidth gets low, it suddenly switches to 640x480. This introduces yet another processing step of reducing the image size, which will again increase lag and decrease image quality.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Mar 26, 2009)

I'm... skeptical.  Just have to see when it comes out.


----------



## Aurali (Mar 26, 2009)

Runefox said:


> A novel concept.
> 
> Won't work, though. At minimum, you're looking at a 50-100ms ping to that service, and that's a ping packet.



I'm at GDC. I've been to the booth. It works. It also takes a fucking huge connection... and the graphics reminisce of golden eye.


----------



## Kryn (Mar 26, 2009)

I only have a 1.5mb down connection anyway, plus I can already play Crysis on high so meh  I still don't think it will work like they say.


----------



## Aurali (Mar 26, 2009)

Kryn said:


> I only have a 1.5mb down connection anyway, plus I can already play Crysis on high so meh  I still don't think it will work like they say.



Meh.. it will work at first.. but the more it catches on, the more lag it will get.. and they know that. They are just hoping the money comes in faster than the players.. BTW.. Quake Live.. game tap.. same concept. :3

btw... >.> err.. nice choice in avis...


----------



## Kryn (Mar 26, 2009)

Gametap still makes you download the entire game doesn't it? I honestly haven't used the service in a couple years but when I did I remember having to wait till the whole game was finished. This supposedly plays the game on the onlive servers, records the video and streams it to your computer or tv. I just don't understand how they are gonna pull this off without there being a delay from your input in the game to what you see on screen.



Eli said:


> btw... >.> err.. nice choice in avis...



thanks :mrgreen:


----------



## Aurali (Mar 26, 2009)

Kryn said:


> Gametap still makes you download the entire game doesn't it? I honestly haven't used the service in a couple years but when I did I remember having to wait till the whole game was finished. This supposedly plays the game on the onlive servers, records the video and streams it to your computer or tv. I just don't understand how they are gonna pull this off without there being a delay from your input in the game to what you see on screen.



really fast connections and multiple server farms.




> thanks :mrgreen:


>.> just don't show the rest of that pic.


----------



## Kryn (Mar 26, 2009)

awww I'm sure no one here would mind seeing it


----------



## Runefox (Mar 26, 2009)

Eli said:


> I'm at GDC. I've been to the booth. It works. It also takes a fucking huge connection... and the graphics reminisce of golden eye.



Heh, you honestly believe that they're connecting you to their servers in (x)istan for their big debut? They're streaming that locally as a proof-of-concept to gather interest and investors. It is physically and theoretically *impossible* to do this the way they're talking about. It doesn't matter how much bandwidth your connection has, it doesn't have the speed to keep up with such a thing, and it never will, until we develop faster-than-light communications, and especially such communications that don't require routing/switching.

It's a scam, as much as people would love it not to be. Sort of like the Phantom, only more and less ambitious all at the same time.


----------



## WolvesSoulZ (Mar 26, 2009)

Wouldn't that constantly eat your bandwith? And as runefox say, it would lag, if their server are full -> Buffering... Please wait...

'neway, this fail.
And for PC gaming -> Customisation FTW.


----------



## Sunny_Otter (Mar 27, 2009)

WolvesSoulZ said:


> Wouldn't that constantly eat your bandwith? And as runefox say, it would lag, if their server are full -> Buffering... Please wait...
> 
> 'neway, this fail.
> And for PC gaming -> Customisation FTW.



Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking -- I don't know about elsewhere, but we only really have 2 companies to choose from for net access and they both have bandwidth caps, anything over and you pay a disgusting amount of money per month. My internet's $25/month for DSL and I play WoW and such with no issues, but the next tier up with higher bandwidth usage is $75/month. There is no middle ground. D:


----------



## Aurali (Mar 27, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Heh, you honestly believe that they're connecting you to their servers in (x)istan for their big debut? They're streaming that locally as a proof-of-concept to gather interest and investors. It is physically and theoretically *impossible* to do this the way they're talking about. It doesn't matter how much bandwidth your connection has, it doesn't have the speed to keep up with such a thing, and it never will, until we develop faster-than-light communications, and especially such communications that don't require routing/switching.


 It uses a ultra high compression algorithm for video compression, and three server farms in the US for transmission of Data. I'm not gonna say it's gonna be the best thing out there (Especially since I was probably one out of say... 5 people to be on at that time). but I'm not gonna say it don't work.

Everyone is expecting lag.. I'm expecting it to play well.. but look like absolute shit.





> It's a scam, as much as people would love it not to be. Sort of like the Phantom, only more and less ambitious all at the same time.


We'll see.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 27, 2009)

Eli said:


> It uses a ultra high compression algorithm for video compression, and three server farms in the US for transmission of Data. I'm not gonna say it's gonna be the best thing out there (Especially since I was probably one out of say... 5 people to be on at that time). but I'm not gonna say it don't work.
> 
> Everyone is expecting lag.. I'm expecting it to play well.. but look like absolute shit.


Well exactly, but on a TV you won't notice much, and on a Mac and older computer it's better than nothing.


----------



## Aurali (Mar 27, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Well exactly, but on a TV you won't notice much, and on a Mac and older computer it's better than nothing.



I still can't emulate games on a PC... I need that bit of fuzziness or it just don't look right.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 27, 2009)

> It uses a ultra high compression algorithm for video compression, and three server farms in the US for transmission of Data. I'm not gonna say it's gonna be the best thing out there (Especially since I was probably one out of say... 5 people to be on at that time). but I'm not gonna say it don't work.


It... Doesn't matter how much compression is used or how much bandwidth is available. The amount of time it takes the data to move is going to be the limiting factor. The fact remains that it takes time for ANY information to move from point A to point B on the internet, no matter how many megabits per second you can download. There is a _delay_ and that's what I'm talking about. At absolute minimum, by virtue of the way the internet works, you're looking at about 100ms or so, which is OK for low-intensity games. But it also takes time to record, compress, and decompress as well. More than likely, you're going to be looking at around a quarter of a second lag between your button presses and what happens on-screen.



> I'm expecting it to play well.. but look like absolute shit.


It'll play well for RPG's, and slow-paced games, and it will also look like absolute shit. "Crysis with all the stuff turned up" won't really matter with all the compression artifacts, and good luck playing a fast-paced game with that.



> Well exactly, but on a TV you won't notice much


Notice much what?


----------



## Aurali (Mar 27, 2009)

Runefox said:


> you're going to be looking at around a quarter of a second lag between your button presses and what happens on-screen.



pretty much. I'm wondering how they are gonna account for this myself.. but I doubt that so many high end people would be behind it if they didn't figure it out.

maybe they'll make some quantum entanglement device to send the relays


----------



## TehSean (Mar 28, 2009)

Just no z.z;;


----------



## Runefox (Mar 28, 2009)

Eli said:


> pretty much. I'm wondering how they are gonna account for this myself.. but I doubt that so many high end people would be behind it if they didn't figure it out.
> 
> maybe they'll make some quantum entanglement device to send the relays



Unless they have, I'd be very surprised if this works anywhere nearly as well as they claim (they said 1ms of latency in one particular interview; Wha?). I honestly don't understand why people think this is any more viable (or any more worthy of attention) than the Phantom - Actually, at least the Phantom wouldn't have had the latency or graphics quality issues. Has anyone ever heard of OnLive before? How about that website? A Flash applet (which is basically a movie player), plus unformatted HTML, for a project like this _screams_ fly-by-night.

My prediction: OnLive won't launch this year. In addition, the company won't be around this time two years from now (maybe that's too liberal; Phantom is still around after all this time).


----------



## Garrus (Mar 28, 2009)

I keep getting told this ain't gonna work until they get the funds to maintain supercomputers and everybody has faster-than-fiber-optic connections.
Garuntee that Europe won't be in thier customer list much then considering how much faster speeds are generally in the US.


----------



## Foxstar (Mar 28, 2009)

Nothing of any use will come of this.


----------



## Aurali (Mar 28, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Unless they have, I'd be very surprised if this works anywhere nearly as well as they claim (they said 1ms of latency in one particular interview; Wha?). I honestly don't understand why people think this is any more viable (or any more worthy of attention) than the Phantom - Actually, at least the Phantom wouldn't have had the latency or graphics quality issues. Has anyone ever heard of OnLive before? How about that website? A Flash applet (which is basically a movie player), plus unformatted HTML, for a project like this _screams_ fly-by-night.
> 
> My prediction: OnLive won't launch this year. In addition, the company won't be around this time two years from now (maybe that's too liberal; Phantom is still around after all this time).


I have Runefox.. only cause my teachers constantly talked about it for the past few months.. >.> One of them knows the programmer personally. So yeah.. I'm gonna be a little less skeptical.


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 28, 2009)

Runefox said:


> A novel concept.
> 
> Won't work, though. At minimum, you're looking at a 50-100ms ping to that service, and that's a ping packet.



Siding with Runefox here, as I made a similar response on a completely different forum.  When your minimum round-trip latency is a _measurable_ amount of time, a lot of weird things can start to happen.  Internet connection 'speeds' are measured by their one-way, asynchronous data transfer rate, they are not measured by the time it takse for your data to *physically* get to and from the servers.  Light speed travels at a rate of approximately one foot per _nano_second.

If the server is even 3,000 miles away from your client end, a game of "ping"-pong (pun intended) would cap out at 30 fps because that represents the *physical distance* it has to travel.

(Or in racing terminology, sure that car has a great top speed -- but what about its acceleration from a dead stop?)

You can't play a fast-paced game (such as FPS or racing, or even certain puzzle games) across an Internet connection where you have to make decisions in split seconds.  Heck, in a game of Mario Kart a split-second can mean the difference between hitting a Fake Item Box vs. a real one, missing or hitting that green shell somebody lobbed at you, or drifting right into a banana peel on Rainbow Road causing you to slide right off the track into deep space.

Or an analogy I used on another forum:  You've pulled out your sniper rifle and are scoping out a target at 10x zoom.  You've taken everything into account -- range, wind, and the guard has stopped for just a moment.  One shot, one kill, right?  You pull the trigger, but in the 100ms that it takes for your game console to inform the server that you're shooting, *the damn guy sneezes*.  The server calculates that your bullet whizzed over his head by three inches and blew the head off a nearby fountain lion (pun intended).  Joy.  You've just given away your position, and pray that he doesn't have a sniper rifle of his own because if he does, he ain't going to miss.

Also, what happens if your connection momentarily blows out, or a packet gets dropped along the way?  In a traditional online game, not much.  Your opponents go out of sync (or suddenly vanish) for a moment, but otherwise _your_ gameplay is not affected.  But in a 'streaming' videogame service, if a packet gets dropped then your gameplay vanishes *entirely* until the next packet comes in.

If you want to know what OnLive would feel like with network latency taken into account, just go play Super Smash Bros. Brawl online for a little, where it takes a half-second for your onscreen character to respond to whatever buttons you press.  This isn't because of the controls, it's because of network latency and that the game displays everything from the server's timeframe.


----------



## Aden (Mar 28, 2009)

I'll reserve judgement until I get my hands on a free trial or something.


----------



## Aurali (Mar 28, 2009)

Aden said:


> I'll reserve judgement until I get my hands on a free trial or something.



this is what a smart person will do :3


----------



## Runefox (Mar 28, 2009)

I really am sorry, but it really isn't physically possible for it to practically achieve latency of less than around 250ms in anything but ideal conditions. Reserving judgement might be what a smart person would do, but a person who understands networking in general can easily (and accurately) judge it right away.


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 28, 2009)

Runefox said:


> I really am sorry, but it really isn't physically possible for it to practically achieve latency of less than around 250ms in anything but ideal conditions. Reserving judgement might be what a smart person would do, but a person who understands networking in general can easily (and accurately) judge it right away.



Ideal conditions such as the GDC booth....  When they advertise video compression taking only 1ms, that still doesn't take into account the time required for the video to *physically* go from server to client, nor does it reflect the insanely complicated mass of routing/switching from server to server to server along the way, which unless you want to fundamentally (and physically) rewire the whole damn Internet, is just plain non-adjustable.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 28, 2009)

Guys, it's not even out yet and all videos showing it being played have no quality issues or anything, and that was 50 miles away from server.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 28, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Guys, it's not even out yet and all videos showing it being played have no quality issues or anything, and that was 50 miles away from server.



The videos that I've seen of OnLive aren't actual gameplay videos.  Not having been at GDC, I can only go by what those who _have_ been. Still, lag *will* be an issue (it's simply impossible for it to work as well as they say), and _there *will* be compression artifacts_ regardless, especially if they're favouring compression speed over compression quality (high-quality encoders require multiple passes, higher compression time, or both). In addition, I have trouble believing that anything they display(ed) at GDC was anything other than ideal. After all, the whole idea isn't to gain gamer hype, but to gain investors and support.


----------



## TehSean (Mar 28, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Guys, it's not even out yet and all videos showing it being played have no quality issues or anything, and that was 50 miles away from server.



How many people are going to be 50 miles away from the server?

Look at it this way, if the system is behind a remote, then what's happening is this:

You move your mouse to look left in an online shooter.
Your terminal sends the left movement to the server.
The server sends back the data AFTER receiving the input information and renders the turn on your terminal's screen.

If ping is constantly under 50, that's fine, but then you have to add on the lag to the other players and the GAME SERVER, too, so the latency starts adding up quickly.

Lag compensation does its best to correct for those faults, but with that enabled, it adds a bit more latency to everyone on the compensation-enabled server. It's why you sometimes get shot when dodging behind walls. That's lag comp in action.

Let's not forget about the big spectre nobody's really talking about: Video compression.

It'll reduce the filesize and reduce the latency required to transmit the signal.

You're going to feel the lag constantly. It won't be like Xbox where at least your movements respond instantly. Remember. All the input data has to bounce back and forth from your hand to the Onlive Central Server.


----------



## Foxstar (Mar 28, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Guys, it's not even out yet and all videos showing it being played have no quality issues or anything, and that was 50 miles away from server.



Listen to the people who know what they are talking about, bud and stop eating PR cookies.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 28, 2009)

> Video compression.
> 
> It'll reduce the filesize and reduce the latency required to transmit the signal.


Video compression will actually add to the latency, since the extra step of recording and actually compressing the video costs precious time, as well. It can't be done in true real time, and similarly needs to be decompressed on the other end. The lower filesize also doesn't have any bearing on the latency, since latency is about the real time difference between the image created on the server and the image displayed on the client.


----------



## Aurali (Mar 28, 2009)

Strata. Don't take this the wrong way., but your bolding of words shows less emphasis and more assholeness. 



Runefox said:


> I really am sorry, but it really isn't physically possible for it to practically achieve latency of less than around 250ms in anything but ideal conditions. Reserving judgement might be what a smart person would do, but a person who understands networking in general can easily (and accurately) judge it right away.



You do realize that if you ARE wrong... that all your smugness and gloating will be brought back against you in future events right? Don't add another blemish to your record. I'm only reporting what I saw at GDC. I could care less if this succeeds or not. I've seen some pretty radical changes in gaming in the last few years, so something that breaks all of what was previously thought impossible is something I'm willing to let have a chance.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 28, 2009)

Foxstar said:


> Listen to the people who know what they are talking about, bud and stop eating PR cookies.


I find it funny that it's not even out yet, yet you're insulting me about not knowing anything about it. Good job, moron.


----------



## TehSean (Mar 28, 2009)

We can assume what it is based on things that have already been tried before and things that pretty much use the SAME TECHNOLOGY, so most of us that are assuming what it is are doing this based on the fact that.. well.. It's using systems that already exist and can be reliably used as references to assume how Onlive will work. :^)


----------



## Runefox (Mar 28, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I find it funny that it's not even out yet, yet you're insulting me about not knowing anything about it. Good job, moron.



You're not quite listening. What they're doing is pretty much precisely what I've been saying. It will not work the way they say; The 1ms response time is unrealistic even on a LAN, there will be approximately 250ms of input latency at minimum thanks to the limitations of the internet itself and the time it takes for the video to be recorded, compressed, and decompressed (which, with fast server farms, can be very speedy, but still tack on a good few milliseconds of latency, especially when you remember that the recording/compression is not happening on the same machine that's rendering the game (this is apparent in that consoles are capable of using this service), which means internal traffic is also happening, adding more hops to the connection, each of which, no matter how local, add latency). It doesn't matter what technology they're using - The physical limits are the biggest problems that will not be surmountable by this service, nor any other service, until quantum computing and faster-than-light communications are commonplace. That may or may not be within our lifetimes.

Again, _excellent_ for playing things like WoW, the next Final Fantasy game or anything relatively turn-based, perhaps even real-time strategy games and some platformers. But first-person shooters, arcade racing games, simulations (driving or flight), and similar will NOT run well enough to play seriously, especially online.

Take for example Team Fortress 2. 250ms of lag is quite significant; It can mean that you can run behind a wall, and for a quarter of a second on everyone else's screen, you're still standing on the other side of it. That can get rather annoying, right? Imagine if that kind of delay happened with your mouse movement. Sniping would be impossible. Fast reactions would be impossible. Here's a very nice visual example:







This is between two monitors (highlighting some limitations of certain types of LCD monitors by using a CRT as reference (which has no input lag (or more properly, output lag))); The input lag is negligible but noticeable, and this kind of lag has only ever been measured up to around 68ms. This alone is enough to make some games unplayable.


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 29, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Take for example Team Fortress 2. 250ms of lag is quite significant; It can mean that you can run behind a wall, and for a quarter of a second on everyone else's screen, you're still standing on the other side of it. That can get rather annoying, right? Imagine if that kind of delay happened with your mouse movement. Sniping would be impossible. Fast reactions would be impossible. Here's a very nice visual example:



I don't play many online games, but Mario Kart DS comes to mind.  You fire a red shell at the guy in front of you, and for about a half-second the red shell makes contact with their racer without knocking them over.  Why?  Because it's up to _their_ DS to determine when and where the red shell hits them.  Similarly, you see a racer run right over a banana peel without suffering any effects, then they suddenly spin out a half-second later and the banana peel disappears.  Why?  Because they hit the banana, but that's how long it took for that information to arrive on your end.

Mario Kart Wii is much better at its lag compensation, but you still run into the occasional lag artifact in online races.  If you throw a banana or green shell at two closer racers you sometimes actually hit both of them because of the latency involved.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 29, 2009)

TehSean said:


> We can assume what it is based on things that have already been tried before and things that pretty much use the SAME TECHNOLOGY, so most of us that are assuming what it is are doing this based on the fact that.. well.. It's using systems that already exist and can be reliably used as references to assume how Onlive will work. :^)



You can assume all you wish, it doesn't change anything; Assuming makes an ass out of you and me.



Runefox said:


> You're not quite listening.


I wasn't even talking to you; don't start.
Despite -anything- you say, you haven't played it so you can -not- know, only guess thinking you do know. They say it works and shown at fifty miles it does work extremely well, until it's released you can reserve judgment on quality and lag, as I am. It is impossible for you to know how it will feel and look until you try it.


----------



## TehSean (Mar 29, 2009)

I'm saying we don't have to assume anything because it's not doing anything new :^)


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 29, 2009)

TehSean said:


> I'm saying we don't have to assume anything because it's not doing anything new :^)


It's not out, and clearly it is because you show me this exact thing some other company is or has done. You make no sense, this isn't out and has never been done, which means it's new.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/new


----------



## Foxstar (Mar 29, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I find it funny that it's not even out yet, yet you're insulting me about not knowing anything about it. Good job, moron.



If telling you to listen to the people who clearly know what they are talking about and telling you to stop taking the PR as truth, IE:Eating PR cookies, i'm curious how you would react if I really insulted you. Did you think the Phantom was hot too? Eli's the only one with hands on with the thing and he's pointed out the downsides and that's under a controlled environment where they can claim whatever they want, but have something else as the truth.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Mar 29, 2009)

If this is going to be embraced, it will be the death of the modding community. And the next step into turning gamers into slaves reliant on the benevolence of the publishing companies.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 29, 2009)

Foxstar said:


> If telling you to listen to the people who clearly know what they are talking about and telling you to stop taking the PR as truth, IE:Eating PR cookies, i'm curious how you would react if I really insulted you. Did you think the Phantom was hot too? Eli's the only one with hands on with the thing and he's pointed out the downsides and that's under a controlled environment where they can claim whatever they want, but have something else as the truth.



Eli has only said, and hasn't proved anything at all.
If you want to really insult me, go for it tough guy; I'm sure your egotistical ideology will win in an argument about something that has little information released and isn't out yet.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Mar 29, 2009)

Talk about serious business...


----------



## Foxstar (Mar 29, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> Talk about serious business...



Always.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 29, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> Talk about serious business...


You're doing it wrong.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 29, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I wasn't even talking to you; don't start.


O-kay then.



> Despite -anything- you say, you haven't played it so you can -not- know


Stop right there. You're telling me that I can't possibly know that these people aren't able to defy the laws of physics? I'll reserve judgement on nothing, and you're a fool if you won't listen to reason.

I very clearly laid out exactly what's going on here, and I can assure you that the latency will be very much like what I describe. Even if it's more like the latency of that monitor, which is _directly connected to the computer_, it's still unplayable for fast-paced games. If you want to go with OnLive, go ahead - I'll kick your ass on my local machine every time, and you'll be bitching about how you pressed the mouse button but the _game itself_ didn't register it until you're already dead.


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 29, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> If this is going to be embraced, it will be the death of the modding community. And the next step into turning gamers into slaves reliant on the benevolence of the publishing companies.



The modding community would never die.  Especially not with all the moddable computers and console systems already in circulation.

It would just go underground.


----------



## Aurali (Mar 29, 2009)

Foxstar said:


> Eli's the only one with hands on with the thing and *she's*


fixed :3


NewfDraggie said:


> Eli has only said, and hasn't proved anything at all.




My School is Collins College, You can find that on GDCs registers. Other than that.. I'm not proving anything.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 29, 2009)

i wont prejudge this at all. it would be awesome if it really worked and if it doesnt... meh, we'll just go on as usual^^
but reading this threat... i really want this to work for some reason XD

srsly guys, its not even out yet! its normal that they make a lot of positive advertisement for this thing!
just calm down, wait for its release (if it really ever gets a releasedate...) and then you can judge it, point fingers and say "i told you!". 
having such a huge debate about it shortly after its announcement is just ridiculous


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 29, 2009)

CaptainCool said:


> srsly guys, its not even out yet! its normal that they make a lot of positive advertisement for this thing!
> just calm down, wait for its release (if it really ever gets a releasedate...) and then you can judge it, point fingers and say "i told you!".
> having such a huge debate about it shortly after its announcement is just ridiculous



The arguments against their pitched claims are perfectly valid.  The hype will eat itself up.


----------



## TehSean (Mar 29, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> It's not out, and clearly it is because you show me this exact thing some other company is or has done. You make no sense, this isn't out and has never been done, which means it's new.
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/new



Ok sure.

http://www.n4g.com/News-299509.aspx

Whoops. They've tried the idea before. Why. It's the co-founder's second swing at this business gamble. I guess that means it's not new. I guess you should do your research or something...?

Here's an excerpt from an article that I'm pretty sure you'll adamantly ignore based on a God argument (it can't be disproven because it can't be proven) that cannot exist in this thread because OnLive is based on technology that already exists (Remote Desktop).

"The killer problem is lag.

Lag can be reduced through better network infrastructure, but there's a certain amount you're never going to be able to avoid. To get OnLive's advertised "just 1 millisecond" of lag, the server would need to be less than 186 miles from the client - and that's assuming you have God's own WAN router that encodes packets instantly. Those don't exist. I have a very fast cable connection in Manhattan, and the best I can get to Yahoo's NYC servers is 18 ms. Google: 37 ms.

In a typical online game, such as Counter-Strike or Unreal Tournament, lag under 100 ms is usually okay, because the game is calculating as much locally as it can. When you walk around, or move the mouse to look left or right, that's being handled directly on the client. You don't feel the lag, unless you're trying to shoot an opponent. Even then, some newer games have lag compensation, which works by adjusting player hitboxes.

(*Important*) But if you push all the graphics rendering onto the remote server, lag is not going to be okay. You're going to see and feel every millisecond, and there's nothing that can be done about it. The server can't use any tricks to render ahead of you, because it's not psychic. If you flick the mouse left to look left, you're not going to see the result on the screen until that packet makes a complete round trip."

So there you go. It's essentially gaming for people who don't mind distinct lag. It's gaming through a remote desktop. Sure, it'll be fine for people who don't want to spend a big glut of cash, but generally speaking, I don't think the idea is going to catch on.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 29, 2009)

Runefox said:


> O-kay then.
> 
> 
> Stop right there. You're telling me that I can't possibly know that these people aren't able to defy the laws of physics? I'll reserve judgement on nothing, and you're a fool if you won't listen to reason.
> ...


I don't think onlive will be good for online, it's for single-player in my mind; it's better than nothing, such as a older computer, only a TV, or a Mac.


----------



## CyberFoxx (Mar 29, 2009)

I honestly don't think it'll take off, at least in most of Canada. Most of the ISPs in Canada have implimented some really stupid bandwidth caps. (My 7mbit/512kbit connection has a 60GB/month cap. I can hit that pretty damn easily) And I'm pretty sure there's other places in the world with just as, if not more, stupid caps as well.


----------



## JakXT (Mar 30, 2009)

.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 30, 2009)

JakXT said:


> http://gdc.gamespot.com/video/6206692/gdc-2009-onlive-press-conference?hd=1
> 
> This video explains pretty much everything.



Gamespot is such a piece of shit that the audio in that video works but not the video, har har.

Oh I see, it basically doesn't seem like it's working until twenty seconds, that's professional.

Edit: Yeah, they say that after about 1000 miles away from their server(s) it will have lag, but only severally noticeable at about 1500 miles. So RuneFox will have lag until they get a closer server up, as will myself and most people; the service still works, and works without lag to the area they're focusing on, they will have three servers (west, central, and east coast America) so maybe Newfoundland will be within range, most likely it will be within playable range, but not perfect range.

That video is really cool, it shows exactly how this can revolutionize gaming and probably be the entirety of the eighth generation of consoles.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 30, 2009)

TehSean said:


> Moronic snip.


This is immensely different in many, many ways.


----------



## TehSean (Mar 30, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> This is immensely different in many, many ways.



So what is your big emotional investment in this OnLive thing anyway? Do you hope for the destruction of the games industry as it currently stands or something? :^)

You're taking offense to criticism of a business platform that you probably have no financial investment in and are insulting others because of what? Just to be right? Just to have an attitude?


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 30, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> ...the service still works, and works without [*much*] lag to the area they're focusing on


Fix'd 



NewfDraggie said:


> This is immensely different [from XBand] in many, many ways.



Not really, and the claims made about lag are still just as valid now as they were then.

If there's 100 ms of latency between you and the server, there's going to be a 200ms "lag" between your input and what you see on-screen (roughly comparable to online SSBB, in fact) because your input has to travel to the server (100ms) before the server can stream the video/audio _back_ (another 100ms) to you.

Sure, if you press the Fire button on your rifle, the server can give the bullet a 200ms head-start to compensate for lag, but it can't fire the bullet 200ms before you press the button in the first place.

THAT is the temporal barrier that they're never going to break.  It's like the classic round-trip problem:  If you drive to the nearest convenience store at 15mph, how fast must you drive back home (along the same route) if you want to average 30mph for the whole trip?  (Answer:  It's impossible.)

PS:  I read something in Popular Science about a high-end camera that allows you to take snapshots with negative latency between shutter button and the end photo, i.e. you can literally take a snapshot of something that occured a moment _before_ pressing the shutter button.  This isn't science fiction, they just 'cheat' -- when you press the shutter button halfway to focus, the camera starts recording immediately so that when you finally take the shot it includes up to 1 second worth of images prior to snap, and you can pick anything from that range as a keeper.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 30, 2009)

TehSean said:


> So what is your big emotional investment in this OnLive thing anyway? Do you hope for the destruction of the games industry as it currently stands or something? :^)


Yes, why not? How it's done currently is piss-poor.



TehSean said:


> You're taking offense to criticism of a business platform that you probably have no financial investment in and are insulting others because of what? Just to be right? Just to have an attitude?


I'm not taking any offense to any criticism here at all, other than you directly offending me.
Clearly, you're wrong; when it's released you will have your proof, but in that video ( http://gdc.gamespot.com/video/6206692/gdc-2009-onlive-press-conference?hd=1 ) you're proven wrong, as is runefox (unless he was speaking about himself, but then again depending on where the server on the east coast is me and him shouldn't have lag either). What, are they lying or something? I'm sure if they lie they would have so many investors and companies partnered with them, yeah they're lying...tard.



Stratadrake said:


> Fix'd


If you can visually notice under 30ping I will have to ask you to prove it, to the human eye it is none.



Stratadrake said:


> Not really, and the claims made about lag are still just as valid now as they were then.


Clearly in that video it's not; the service is only shooting for within a thousand miles from the server for most games.



Stratadrake said:


> If there's 100 ms of latency between you and the server, there's going to be a 200ms "lag" between your input and what you see on-screen (roughly comparable to online SSBB, in fact) because your input has to travel to the server (100ms) before the server can stream the video/audio _back_ (another 100ms) to you.


It doesn't work like that; ping it to and from, you don't double it.
They say it's far below 100 milliseconds of ping, that it's more around one millisecond. And if this is a lie, again why would they have -so- much support? I know they're American and a lot of bullshitters in the USA get support by morons, but the people supporting them aren't these morons.  



Stratadrake said:


> Sure, if you press the Fire button on your rifle, the server can give the bullet a 200ms head-start to compensate for lag, but it can't fire the bullet 200ms before you press the button in the first place.


Read above.



Stratadrake said:


> THAT is the temporal barrier that they're never going to break.  It's like the classic round-trip problem:  If you drive to the nearest convenience store at 15mph, how fast must you drive back home (along the same route) if you want to average 30mph for the whole trip?  (Answer:  It's impossible.)


They broke it, but they're not shooting for anything past 1500 miles from server, the thing is they will have *three servers* (east, west, and central US) so anybody in the US or directly near it has the service properly; later they will move to outside the North America region, but just because you're not in their target area doesn't mean this won't work at all, some games are still very much playable at 100-250 ping.


----------



## TehSean (Mar 30, 2009)

Doesn't the GDC host its servers locally? :^) So the demo vids were akin to watching a LAN I'm assuming?

I dunno. I don't think it's going to work. :^( I think you and your thread should pack up its bags because the magic eight ball we've all been shaking is weighted toward "some other time"

It's a great idea, but it just can't work. It's not like every single console/games company is going to be on board for it anyway. What about our beloved Nintendo titles? :C

Also: I lolled that you said "OnLive broke the temporal barrier". That's absolutely hilarious.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 30, 2009)

TehSean said:


> Doesn't the GDC host its servers locally? :^) So the demo vids were akin to watching a LAN I'm assuming?
> 
> I dunno. I don't think it's going to work. :^( I think you and your thread should pack up its bags because the magic eight ball we've all been shaking is weighted toward "some other time"
> 
> ...



Looks like somebody watched the video; no, it wasn't LAN.
Watch the video and stop going "I think" "it works like I think it works"; don't make up your mind on something, thinking you know everything about it, when all you heard was the theory. It makes you look stupid.


----------



## TehSean (Mar 30, 2009)

You're adorable :^)


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 30, 2009)

Thank you. ;3


----------



## Aurali (Mar 30, 2009)

Okay.. to prove a point I tested a ping from here (phoenix AZ) to a server in Houston.. close to 1000 miles.. the speed was 32 ms. now.. 64 ms + rendering will prob about.. 100 ms.. or 10 frames a second. that's very close to being a playable game.. is it not? Since they really aren't marketing for Europe.. I'm assuming that they won't have latency issues WITH europe.. or won't support Europe.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 30, 2009)

Eli said:


> Okay.. to prove a point I tested a ping from here (phoenix AZ) to a server in Houston.. close to 1000 miles.. the speed was 32 ms. now.. 64 ms + rendering will prob about.. 100 ms.. or 10 frames a second. that's very close to being a playable game.. is it not? Since they really aren't marketing for Europe.. I'm assuming that they won't have latency issues WITH europe.. or won't support Europe.



Why did you take 32ping and change it to 64? Ping is a measurement of there and back, it is already doubled; half your numbers.

And you're right, at first they will only be supporting 1000-1500 miles away from server, and will have three servers across the USA at first only. So it will work, and it will be lag free for the people within the distance, if you're not within the distance you can still play, but it will not be promised lag-free.


----------



## Aurali (Mar 30, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Why did you take 32ping and change it to 64? Ping is a measurement of there and back, it is already doubled; half your numbers.
> 
> And you're right, at first they will only be supporting 1000-1500 miles away from server, and will have three servers across the USA at first only. So it will work, and it will be lag free for the people within the distance, if you're not within the distance you can still play, but it will not be promised lag-free.



I doubled it because it might be higher depending on server load.. blah blah blah.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 31, 2009)

> Why did you take 32ping and change it to 64? Ping is a measurement of there and back, it is already doubled; half your numbers.


Doubled because then you need to take into account the delay between your keystrokes/input heading there and back, too. 100ms is not playable for anything like a shooter, though. Not as though 100ms of ping is going to be the norm.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 31, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Doubled because then you need to take into account the delay between your keystrokes/input heading there and back, too. 100ms is not playable for anything like a shooter, though. Not as though 100ms of ping is going to be the norm.



Well not really, it's half  of the 32 ping for your keystroke to make its way there and the other half of the 32ping for the image to come back. But yeah, it would be unplayable I think after about 100 ping, at least I think so.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 31, 2009)

> Well not really, it's half of the 32 ping for your keystroke to make its way there and the other half of the 32ping for the image to come back


And then add in the amount of time it takes for the video to come back. Bear in mind that the video is already delayed from the original source, you're adding more delay when you send input.

So assuming a ping of 32ms, that's 32ms for the screen to come to you, and 32ms for the input to go to the server, making a total of 64ms of delay under ideal circumstances.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 31, 2009)

Runefox said:


> And then add in the amount of time it takes for the video to come back. Bear in mind that the video is already delayed from the original source, you're adding more delay when you send input.
> 
> So assuming a ping of 32ms, that's 32ms for the screen to come to you, and 32ms for the input to go to the server, making a total of 64ms of delay under ideal circumstances.



That's playable, and yet we don't know if 32ping is what it will actually be, when that person pinged an unknown server and this cloud server setup should have more response time.


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 31, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Bear in mind that the video is already delayed from the original source, you're adding more delay when you send input.


They already advertise video compression introducing only 1ms of latency to the overall ping . . . small change compared to all the Internet routing/switching between points A and B.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 31, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> They already advertise video compression introducing only 1ms of latency to the overall ping . . . small change compared to all the Internet routing/switching between points A and B.



What I meant was what you're seeing on your screen - It's already delayed that 32ms; Input would be, to you, further delayed because your input has to go to the server, and then come back to your screen as showing you did something. So in essence, while what you're _looking at_ is theoretically 32ms late, your input will also be 32ms late on top of that, making it seem to your eyes that each input takes 64ms (when it really takes 32ms, but it takes another 32ms for that to show up).

32ms is also a very, _very_ ideal number. You'll probably be looking at closer to 50-100ms in most situations. My ping to Google, for example, is a steady 100ms; My ping to FA is 90ms; To Slashdot is 83ms; To a local computer shop (site hosted locally on a broadband connection) is 117ms; To Rogers is 60ms... And that can be exacerbated by any number of things. In addition, it takes a rather large number of hops to get outside of my ISP's network (the same is likely in most other cases):


```
[12:16 AM] Runefox@Anthrichiru [~] $ tracert [url]www.google.ca[/url]

Tracing route to google.navigation.opendns.com [208.69.36.230]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  foxwall.home.runefox.net [192.168.1.254]
  2     5 ms     5 ms     6 ms  10.24.0.1
  3     7 ms     5 ms     7 ms  vl-201.gw01.nfsj.phub.net.cable.rogers.com [66.185.91.225]
  4     7 ms     5 ms     5 ms  69.63.248.69
  5    29 ms    29 ms    29 ms  69.63.248.22
  6    57 ms    62 ms    57 ms  so-4-1-2.gw02.ym.phub.net.cable.rogers.com [66.185.82.81]
  7    58 ms    57 ms    56 ms  so-2-1-0.gw02.mtnk.phub.net.cable.rogers.com [66.185.80.134]
  8    75 ms    75 ms    76 ms  69.63.248.97
  9    74 ms    75 ms    75 ms  64.71.240.18
 10    75 ms    75 ms    77 ms  te9-3.mpd03.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.26.61]
 11    81 ms    81 ms    81 ms  te4-2.mpd01.bos01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.201]
 12    85 ms    87 ms    87 ms  te2-2.mpd01.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.6.18]
 13    87 ms    87 ms    87 ms  te3-4.mpd01.ord03.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.6.206]
 14    88 ms    87 ms    86 ms  te7-1.ccr02.ord03.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.24.214]
 15    91 ms    86 ms    87 ms  vl3803.na31.b002281-5.ord03.atlas.cogentco.com [38.20.40.174]
 16   101 ms   103 ms   101 ms  38.104.102.62
 17   101 ms   101 ms   100 ms  208.69.36.230

Trace complete.
[12:17 AM] Runefox@Anthrichiru [~] $
```


----------



## Stratelier (Apr 1, 2009)

Runefox said:


> What I meant was what you're seeing on your screen - It's already delayed that 32ms; Input would be, to you, further delayed because your input has to go to the server, and then come back to your screen as showing you did something. So in essence, while what you're _looking at_ is theoretically 32ms late, your input will also be 32ms late on top of that, making it seem to your eyes that each input takes 64ms (when it really takes 32ms, but it takes another 32ms for that to show up).


It was already established that a 'ping' is measured by round-trip latency and not one-way, and yes, what you see onscreen is already delayed by a full ping.  (Again, compare playing online SSBB)


----------



## Runefox (Apr 1, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> It was already established that a 'ping' is measured by round-trip latency and not one-way, and yes, what you see onscreen is already delayed by a full ping.  (Again, compare playing online SSBB)



I'm not sure whether you're agreeing with me or not, but it _is_ a bit confusing. Still, again, your input will be further delayed above and beyond what your screen update delay is. I haven't ever really played Brawl online (in fact, I've played Brawl once, and hated it, just like I did Melee), so I can't speak for it, honestly.


----------



## Aurali (Apr 1, 2009)

similar (working) concept

http://arbstudios.com/PlayGame.aspx?game=mmodemoloader


----------



## CyberFoxx (Apr 1, 2009)

Heh, watch Onlive actually be an April Fools joke. (I'm sorry, but I honestly can't take it seriously.)


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 1, 2009)

CyberFoxx said:


> Heh, watch Onlive actually be an April Fools joke. (I'm sorry, but I honestly can't take it seriously.)



How can this be an April Fools joke? What are you smoking?
You can't LEAD up to a April Fools joke, you pull the entire thing off on April the 1st or it's simply a normal joke.


----------



## CyberFoxx (Apr 1, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> How can this be an April Fools joke? What are you smoking?
> You can't LEAD up to a April Fools joke, you pull the entire thing off on April the 1st or it's simply a normal joke.



Well, it's gotta be some kind of joke at least.


----------



## Runefox (Apr 1, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> How can this be an April Fools joke? What are you smoking?
> You can't LEAD up to a April Fools joke, you pull the entire thing off on April the 1st or it's simply a normal joke.



Well, it's _one_ of the two.  That said, there have been a few pre-April-1 April Fool's jokes. One in particular involving IE 8.1 Beta code-named "Eagle Eyes".


----------



## Stratelier (Apr 2, 2009)

Runefox said:


> I'm not sure whether you're agreeing with me or not, but it _is_ a bit confusing. Still, again, your input will be further delayed above and beyond what your screen update delay is. I haven't ever really played Brawl online (in fact, I've played Brawl once, and hated it, just like I did Melee), so I can't speak for it, honestly.


When you play Brawl online, everything you see onscreen is based on server packets that have already made the round-trip.  Even _your own character's_ position and movement is displayed based on what has been sent/received from the server (rather than locally, as is the case with MOST online gameplay).  So when you hit the A button to attack, that information has to be acknowledged by the server before it shows your character actually attacking onscreen.  On the upside, everybody has a synchronized view of the gamestate, but on the downside, the latency between you and server is _horrible_ for what is normally a fast-paced fighting game.  In order to Brawl properly, not only do you have to plan out your moves in advance but _execute_ them in advance, too.


----------



## TehSean (Apr 2, 2009)

People that can explain it better than I can behind the link and pose some arguments that you can all deliberate on that haven't yet been brought up:

http://www.gameplayer.com.au/gp_documents/OnLive-Fails.aspx

My stance is still:OnLive doesn't offer enough reasons for me, personally, to use it, and I view my views as those of the general gamer population, who obsess over graphics and getting the best dollar to quality ratio they can. :^)


----------



## Stratelier (Apr 3, 2009)

TehSean said:


> http://www.gameplayer.com.au/gp_documents/OnLive-Fails.aspx
> 
> 4. No input from the holy trinity (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo)
> OnLive will no doubt annoy the three biggest names in the gaming biz, by having consumers bypass their expensive (loss generating) consoles and cutting them out of the picture.



They're only 2/3's correct here.  Nintendo wouldn't care as much as Sony/MS because Nintendo actually turns a *profit* on their hardware, too.


----------



## Runefox (Apr 3, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> They're only 2/3's correct here.  Nintendo wouldn't care as much as Sony/MS because Nintendo actually turns a *profit* on their hardware, too.



Actually, Microsoft also turns a profit on their hardware now, if I'm not mistaken. It was a big point of contention between MS-backers and Sony-backers a while ago.


----------



## Aurali (Apr 3, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Actually, Microsoft also turns a profit on their hardware now, if I'm not mistaken. It was a big point of contention between MS-backers and Sony-backers a while ago.



and those who thought Sony losing a profit on their consoles were saying it made Sony care about us.. >.> They get their money..

And the wii still sells more per week.. without dropping their price..

Take that Nintendo Gamecube.


----------



## Werevixen (Apr 3, 2009)

I'm not interested in it at all, but I get 25Mbit down, 1Mbit up cable with a 60GB/month limit for â‚¬64 a month. :v

So I think I could make use of it easily, were I infact, interested.


----------



## Aurali (Apr 3, 2009)

Werevixen said:


> I'm not interested in it at all, but I get 25Mbit down, 1Mbit up cable with a 60GB/month limit for â‚¬64 a month. :v
> 
> So I think I could make use of it easily, were I infact, interested.



I'm sure it won't do well. EA just jumped on seeing it as an anti piracy device. I just don't think it's impossible.


----------



## AlexX (Apr 3, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> They're only 2/3's correct here.  Nintendo wouldn't care as much as Sony/MS because Nintendo actually turns a *profit* on their hardware, too.


What's also amusing is that it insinuates that Onlive would result in eliminating the 3 major console markets if it did manage to survive.

I realize PC gamers have always argued that consoles will die out shortly, but frankly, I don't think that will ever happen (or at least not anytime soon).


----------



## Runefox (Apr 3, 2009)

> PC gamers have always argued that consoles will die out shortly


And the hilarious thing about that is that console gamers keep arguing that PC gaming is dead/dying.


----------



## Dusty (Apr 3, 2009)

Runefox said:


> And the hilarious thing about that is that console gamers keep arguing that PC gaming is dead/dying.



And the hilarious thing is I play both.....  CAN'T WE ALL GET ALONG!?


----------



## AlexX (Apr 3, 2009)

Runefox said:


> And the hilarious thing about that is that console gamers keep arguing that PC gaming is dead/dying.


Yeah, it works both ways. Sorry if I made it sound like it didn't.


----------



## Runefox (Apr 3, 2009)

Oh, yeah, I know, I'm just saying that gamers as a whole are extremely... Well, odd.


----------



## Stratelier (Apr 3, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Actually, Microsoft also turns a profit on their hardware now, if I'm not mistaken.


Maybe, but Nintendo _always_ turns a profit on their hardware, even on day one.

Which is part of the reason the Wii is an octave or two below the number crunching of the PS3/360....


----------



## Runefox (Apr 3, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> Maybe, but Nintendo _always_ turns a profit on their hardware, even on day one.
> 
> Which is part of the reason the Wii is an octave or two below the number crunching of the PS3/360....



Yes, but it also happens to suffer from a plethora of relatively bland games that don't take advantage of the hardware, more or less making it a gimmicky Playstation 2. There are some amazing first-party titles that make full use of the console's capabilities (Wii Sports is actually one of the most amusing and fun games I've ever played), but third parties haven't caught on yet, and first-party releases are slow-going.

Which makes me wonder whether Nintendo is actually keeping the Wii going on its own software, despite the lazy release cycle.

And then I realize, yes, yes it is.

Wow.


----------

