OnLive could threaten Xbox, PS3, and Wii
The OnLive system will be shown with 16 games from a series of major publishers during the Game Developers Conference in San Francisco this week. OnLive is aiming to upset the traditional video game business model.
(Credit: OnLive)SAN FRANCISCO--Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo, look out. Your traditional video game console business model may be in danger.
It's too early to tell how much danger, of course, but a start-up called OnLive announced a brand-new game distribution system Monday night that, if it works as planned, could change the games game forever.
OnLive, which was started by WebTV founder Steve Perlman and former Eidos CEO Mike McGarvey, is aiming to launch a system--seven years in the works--that will digitally distribute first-run, AAA games from publishers like Electronic Arts, Take-Two, Ubisoft, Atari, and others, all at the same time as those titles are released into retail channels. The system is designed to allow players to stream on-demand games at the highest quality onto any Intel-based Mac or PC running XP or Vista, regardless of how powerful the computer.
The system will also stream games directly to a TV via a small plug-in device, and players can use a custom wireless controller as well as VoIP headsets in conjunction with it.
The OnLive system includes the ability to use wireless controllers similar to those available for standard console systems like the Xbox or PS3. It also has a small micro-console that will allow games to be streamed directly to a TV.
(Credit: OnLive)Based here in San Francisco, OnLive timed its formal unveiling to this week's Game Developers Conference, where it will be showcasing the technology and 16 initial games it will launch with.
The service is currently in a closed beta, but is expected to go into a public beta this summer, and to launch this winter.
According to Perlman, OnLive's technology will make it possible to stream the games in such a manner--high quality, no matter what kind of system the user has--by virtue of a series of patented and patent-pending compression technologies. And instead of requiring users to download the games, OnLive will host them all and stream them from a series of the highest-end servers. Users will have only to download a 1MB plug-in to get the service up and running.
OnLive is hoping to capture a significant portion of the video game market share. In February, the industry posted one of its strongest months ever, with total sales of $1.47 billion, up 10 percent from a year ago. And in February, the Xbox, PS3 and Wii accounted for total sales of 1.42 million units.
The OnLive system aims to bring cost-efficient instant and high-quality video games streamed to Macs and PCs.
(Credit: OnLive)An intended benefit of this infrastructure, Perlman and McGarvey explained, is that users will be able to play streamed games via OnLive with no lag, so long as their Internet connections meet minimum thresholds. For standard-definition play, that would mean a minimum 1.5 Mbps connection, and for high-def, 5 Mbps.
That's obviously an essential feature, as it's hard to imagine anyone paying for a service like OnLive, no matter what games are on offer, if the user experience is inadequate. But the company promises that as long as users have the requisite minimum hardware, operating systems, and Internet connections, they should be able to have seamless play.
The upshot of this infrastructure model, Perlman said, is that OnLive is somewhat future-proof, meaning that players won't have to upgrade anything to keep on playing games on the system years into the future. Instead, the upgrades will happen on the back-end, with the company regularly boosting the power of the servers it uses to host and stream the games.
And while demos always have to be taken with a grain of salt, CNET News did see a real-time presentation of OnLive on at least two different computers and on a HD TV. Game play was as smooth and lag-free as advertised
So far, OnLive has yet to make its business model public, but what seems likely is some form of subscription service, where players will pay a monthly access fee and then pay additional costs, depending on whether they want to play games once, or buy them for permanent play.
The company also said that it will probably offer free trials of some or all of the games it offers, allowing consumers to decide whether they want to buy. OnLive recognizes that some players may use those trials as a way of deciding whether to buy such games from traditional retail stores, but Perlman and McGarvey suggested that as long as people are interacting with the OnLive system, they'll be happy.
It's clear that OnLive is modeling its system at least somewhat after Microsoft's hit Xbox Live service. So fans of multiplayer games won't be on their own. Rather, they'll have full access to multiplayer features of games built for them. And another interesting social feature is one that will allow users to digitally watch others play games in real time. The company thinks that users will find it exciting to watch the best players in action, even if they themselves are only kibitzing.
Perlman said that the concept of spectating in online game systems is, in and of itself, not new, but that OnLive presents the first time players will be able to look in on what others are playing without owning the games themselves.
Another social feature in the Xbox Live mold is what are called "brag clips." These are essentially 15-second replays of game action that players can share with friends if they want to show off their prowess. This is possible, Perlman said, because OnLive is continually recording the last 15 seconds of action.
The OnLive system includes social features such as 'brag clips,' which allow players to share 15-second videos of game action they want to brag about.
(Credit: OnLive)All told, McGarvey said, OnLive offers a full suite of standard social features including friends, clans, rankings, leader boards, tournaments and more.
From the outset, OnLive isn't partnering with any of the first-party publishers--Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo, meaning that franchises like "Halo" or "Zelda" won't be available. And that makes sense, since those companies are hardly likely to want to sign up with a company whose very technology may obviate their longstanding business models.
That means, Perlman and McGarvey acknowledged, that many players who sign up for OnLive's service will still maintain their consoles, and continue to buy games for them. At least for the rest of the current generation of machines, they said. But come the next generation, all bets are off, they said.
And for the nine--to date--third-party publishers who have committed to being involved, McGarvey said, OnLive presents a much more efficient and profitable distribution model than the standard retail structure. That's because the system is all digital, cutting down on physical distribution costs, and because it is designed to eradicate piracy and second-hand sales, both of which are banes of the publishers' existence.
Indeed, McGarvey said that OnLive has gotten strong commitments of titles from the nine publishers. That means, added Perlman, that the planned launch this winter could be accompanied by the most titles of any new gaming system launch in history.
In addition, McGarvey said publishers are eager for the kind of raw data that OnLive can provide about players' usage of the games, including whether they like or dislike games, how much they play, how they play and so on. That data is hard for publishers to collect with traditional consoles, he argued.
Clearly, OnLive has set an ambitious goal: dethroning the console makers as the game industry's kings. And as is always the case with brand-new and publicly unavailable technology, it is far too early to know whether the company or the service can live up to that goal. But if its demo is any indication, OnLive is definitely onto something, and given that the company has been in stealth mode for so many years, it's possible that the console makers will be caught off guard.
Daniel Terdiman is a staff writer at CNET News covering games, Net culture, and everything in between. E-mail Daniel. 





term not found :C
Term found :) I'm sure Linux will be supported soon enough, if it works...
p.s.
"more profitable distribution model " I guess that means we end up paying more for the games in the long run...
This is a terrible TERRIBLE idea and is only good news for those with a mac.
-CDs vs cassettes vs vinyl
-DVDs vs VHS tapes
-Disc-based video games vs cartridges
With all of these, the price for the consumer has either been unchanged, or increased (vinyl prices may be $2-3 more than CDs now, but it's become a enthusiast medium in the last two decades).
Rather than being cheaper, delivering gameplay via internet streaming is far more costly to the publisher than a DVD or Blu-Ray. For a game publisher to provide 30 hours of High Definition gaming to the consumer
DVD or Blu-Ray: $1 (print and ship to retail)
Streaming game: $30 (conservatively based on current hosting costs and QoS requirement)
This is an investor scam at best. There's a sucker born every day.
Streaming? Only works if the games are in a package and cost less than 5 dollars a month.
But I'm afraid that the bandwidth limit is a problem. You need a fast, reliable internet connection for this service to work properly, and I'm skeptic that a 5M connection is enough for HD.
Another problem is the resolution offered. They are talking about 760p, but most PC games support 1080p and beyond. So, until they can match that, I think that their graphics quality is a limitation.
And of course, the price - if you need to pay a subscription fee of ~20$/month, it can sum up to more than 240$ a year + whatever you'll need to pay for each title you play. And this title won't be really yours - meaning, you won't be able to sell it as second hand, and I'm not sure what will happen to your game lbrary if the company crashes.
But, this is probably the future. Steam popularized the game digital distributions area, and people are getting used to the idea of having a digital copy of their games, and not a DVD.
And the possibility of playing whatever game you want on a standard PC is just mind blowing. But time will tell if they will be able to deliver what they are promising (and I hope this will be true also outside the US - which is a huge market...).
The only way to have video that doesn't lose quality wh3en compressed is to not compress it. thus, the games played on their service wont look anywhere near what they would if run on the client side. If I spent 500 bucks, I could easily upgrade my PC to be able to play games at resolutions HIGHER than 1080p, without the quality loss of compressed video.
Plus, I bet all those **** ISPs will love the sudden explosion of traffic on their networks.
If this system pick's up and has enough support form studio's ( which it does appear to have a fair few big ones) then it could herald a new era of gaming.
This is what Cloud Computing was built for. :D
My only issue is the last console to do this kind of thing never happened - the aptly named Phantom.
Still if they can sell the console block thing for the $100 they were touting it'd be well worth the purchase.
And this would be great for netbook's.
Need a fast internet connection And reliable.
The controller looks terribly uncomfortable.
You don't own the game, they just stream it to you,
No DLC/MODS.
They would need Billions of dollars to be able to support hundreds of thousands(Or millions) People playing games at once, Or better yet Playing crysis at 60 FPS on HD.
How many super computers do these people have, And how could they have Made this technology without it getting leaked? For 7 Years at that
Price, which hasn't been announced.
No exclusives From other platforms, and only games from publishers that want to use this.
And Also, Bandwith...
2. From what it seemed like, you don't have to stick with that controller (if you are playing on your computer at least). What makes you think that a third party isn't going to make a controller that is comfortable?
3. Fine, I don't own the game. Just like how I don't technically own SPORE, or any other game that uses Securom. I still get to play the game, right? It's still fun, right? Disks get scratched up, lost, or stolen. Also, I can stream the same game on any computer I want, no real install times or anything.
4. You don't know that. They haven't revealed their entire business plan/model for it yet. It's possible that the developers could work with OnLive so that it could happen.
5. Isn't that what the betas are doing to test the system? Let a little bit of people do it at a time, instead of just everyone on at the same time, causing crashes of sorts like a certain bad Apple I know.
6. Not super computers, "High Performance game servers". It isn't hard to keep quiet when the big 3 are so much louder.
7. Price is just s subscription fee and any other bits of hardware should you choose to. If you were smart, you'd just use your HDTV as your computer monitor and goof off with any 3rd party controllers that are compatible with your computer.
Even if the price is 30, 40, or 50$ a month, with as many games as you can play in that time span, it's much cheaper than buying one new game at 60$ a month.
8. It's still much to early to tell if they are even going to get exclusives within their own. We're talking about developers being able to do technically anything they want because their not having to rely on user's systems. They can release at a faster distribution rate at a cheaper cost. They can fix system bugs instead of asking people to download and install patches. Everything is fully at their end to which they have nearly unlimited restrictions.
9. See number 1.
1. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The digital TV (DTV) conversion is for the over the air (OTA) signal. It has absolutely nothing to do with cable companies. Besides, TV has absolutely nothing to do with internet access. Sure a cable company or telephone company may provide TV and internet service, but the two technologies are separate. Also, aggressive/hardcore gamers typically want to own their own equipment, while here they are just paying for access to servers running the games.
2. The primary controller included with a system is the default controller, so it is what people use to judge all the games.
3. Ever try using Steam on the PC?
4. You do not know that either.
5. Closed beta. This sounds more like a ponzi scheme run by Bernie Madoff.
6. "High performance game server" = "super computer". It is just semantics.
7. People who can afford a $800 to $2000 HDTV really do not flinch at the low cost of a gaming console. Only super hard core gamers play more than 1 or 2 games a month, and they like to actually own their games and equipment.
8. Sure I would really like to see that stuff stream properly. The internet in the US can barely handle streaming of fixed video in SD, let alone HD. Interactive video in HD? Not going to happen with the current state of the internet in the US. The situation is even worse in Europe, so they cannot even consider that market.
9. See #1.
1. How many instances of Crysis could possible run on one computer? Supercomputers are Heavy on the CPU side, but Crysis requires lots of GPU power.
2. This sounds like trying to go back to the days of a central location where all the CPU power resides. This model doesn't work with games. You mean that one computer running 10 instances of Crysis can run it better than 10 computers each running one instance of Crysis? Aside from GPU power and bandwidth, they need to compress and send the video data on the same sever. LOL....OK.
3. Games require inputs from the user to be detected and acted on in very small amounts of time, even having a 30-40 ms lag would be extremely noticible in a game like Crysis. For simple, non-lag type games with would be ok though.
4. In this day and age of the internet, NOTHING this good stayes under wraps for long.
5. Its almost April 1st.
6. Compression technology is pretty mature now. For someone to say that they have come up with a 200:1 compression scheme that can be done in 1 ms, why make a video game system for this to make you money? This could be the foundation for SO MANY software products...
1. Meh
2. Meh
3. Yup
4. So all around assumption. YIPEE!
5. Open beta's coming out soon
6. Meh
7. Meh
8. Meh
9. See number Meh.
I understand the counter points, I just wanted to support a new idea that I've been waiting to hear. Oh well, there go my dreams, crashing on flight Oceana 815.
Good point on Spore. That's why I regret having bought it. It's why I won't buy another game that does that kind of crap. I've used up most of my installs. Of those one computer died. One needs reformated and will be losing that install. The last needs service which of course will wipe the hard drive as SOP. That's 3 installs dead. They upped me to two more but that's not going to last since I can't even get back to where I was and I already know those will be refomated leaving me with none. I can't even dump the game since I already know it's not worth the hassle. This path is not worth repeating. Anytime you can avoid online activation you will be saving yourself hassle.
Y
X B
A
with that setup the X and Y buttons are like the X and Y axis and the A and B are set up the way they have been since NES...so people are used to that. L-I-V-E is a bad idea.
Have 3 Mbps DSL here. This means Wii quality games on my PC. Cable doesn't guarantee the bandwidth for lag free anything.
Show me fiber to the curb and I will believe this!
Models Similar:
1. Cell (SOLD)
2. Phantom (Dead)
3. VOD (Jury Still Out)
As I understand it, the service sends video to your display. You then send feedback via the controller to the service. This is fine if you live close to the OnLive servers, but what if you don't? If the data takes, say, a quarter of a second to go one way, that means that, not including reaction time, there will be a half-second delay between the server giving you information and you acting on it. This applies to "offline" play as well as multiplayer.
Isn't that worse than the current model, where the only delay in the player's actions is reaction time and lag only surfaces when players on other consoles are involved? Just saying.
Other than that, I like the concept, and love the dedicated media controls on the controller.
a half second delay would be 2fps. not 30fps.
a sixthy delay would be 60fps. so in that 60th of a second your mouse sends signal to PC, it moves your polygons your Gfx card renders it out, its shown on your screen. rinse and repeat.
This way its you move mouse, goes to pc, signal sent to their servers, their servers figure out polygons, stream the footage back, your PC still has to then on top of this decode the 720p footage too. then rinse and repeat.
I get an internal lag of 5ms, which thats as fast as my display is, if i start lagging at 80fps it get's close to unplayable. 20-40 is my average and thats the stage where its only my mouse signals being sent to servers, not me streaming footage back.
Kudos to them if they figure out how to minimize the lag.
I think you're unit conversions are incorrect.
[(60 frames)/(1 second)] * (0.5 second) = 30 frames
2 FPS is correct.
1 FPS = 1000 milliseconds
2 FPS = 500 milliseconds
0.5 = 500 milliseconds
it doesn't matter if it's 2FPS or 30FPS.
30FPS is fine if it means one frame every 30th of a second. Nevertheless, if you get a 0.5 second lag, followed by 30 frames at the speed of 60FPS, that is technically 30FPS (hey you got 30 frames in one second, right ?), but you definitely see the lag, and that's the potential problem. Instead of considering FPS, consider continuous lag time. Regarding that, each person will have hos own standards. Personally, I consider having a .5 second lag every hour or so a maximum, more than that and I'll change platform. If Onlive together with my ISP can provide that, awesome, I'm interested. Otherwise, gimme my games on DVD or downloaded on Steam back.
When the end user has to send controller inputs all the way back to wherever, and wait for a video frame to come all the way back form wherever, lag is going to happen. Period.
Could be a threat as networks get faster though. Microsoft, Sony, and Nitendo will have plenty of time to adapt however.
Steve Perlman was founder of WebTv.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Perlman
Steam?
"Another social feature in the Xbox Live mold is what are called "brag clips." These are essentially 15-second replays of game action that players can share with friends if they want to show off their prowess. This is possible, Perlman said, because OnLive is continually recording the last 15 seconds of action. "
Fraps?
"Clearly, OnLive has set an ambitious goal: dethroning the console makers as the game industry's kings. "
There is HUGE debate over this point, go on Google and you can find loads of top sites arguing one way or the other well over the PC/Console issue. There is no way you can claim this with no evidence at all.
I can't see how this is better than existing models and can see A LOT of reasons why it's worse! It's never going to take off unless they can get a server in every city, town, village and hamlet in the world to alleviate lag. It doesn't matter HOW compressed the data is - size and lag are pretty much unrelated. I could get a 1GBPs satellite connection - massive throughput and massive lag, or a direct but small connection, small on both.
People said that Xbox Live would never work, streaming video from Hulu would fail, there was no way you'd get an HD video stream from Netflix... never count them out until they've had a chance to show themselves. The people who put this thing together have knowledge well beyond what most of us posting here can claim about hosted services. If you look at the model, all they are sending you is video and all you're sending them is inputs from the controller. They're in beta now and happy with the performance. One would think that they would be forward thinking enough to be preparing now for the possible influx of gamers when they launch. If it comes in at a low price point, a lot of people will buy it just to try it out.
I am as skeptical as anyone else, but, I'm not one to give reasons as to why something won't work when it is working. Bill Gates talked about digital distribution for the next Xbox years ago. The only difference would be that you'd download and play locally in that case. I have high hopes for this service and hope they can pull it off.
The infrastructure needs vast upgrades to deal with this level. Presently, there isn't much of a business plan to pay for such an upgrade. If something comes along that makes people want to pay an extra $20 month for a faster internet, then maybe...
For now, there is still a significant dialup crowd, let alone higher bandwidth stuff.
Another example of someone building something in the hopes that "They will come".
Games are going to go this way eventually, they already are - You can't play a full version of an Xbox Arcade game without being online. Whether this is to become a leading name or the next big thing is irrelevant - what will happen is that the hosting of things that we currently buy in shops will become more and more digitialised. This encompasses all media, and it is much easier to maintain security and distribution for something which can only be used from one place. With this will come new ways to hack things - there are ways to connect to Xbox live, and play online without paying any subscription, using local software on your pc to emulate the xbox live server connection.
I can see this, or an idea like it, taking off big time.... eventually. For the meantime though, I can see people getting pissed off with this, and it never really getting a big enough player base to be cheap enough to warrant.
- by NiGHTS4EVA March 24, 2009 6:10 AM PDT
- this thing probably plays like killzone 2 with the input lag =p
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by dodgeman007 March 25, 2009 9:29 AM PDT
- lag will just depend on the game your playing and not everyone plays games online....
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 7 pages (168 Comments)