Cloud Computing Games via Onlive: Fact or Fiction?

[KainXS]

if only 100ms is available in the best cases then I don't think tis gonna work. . . . . . .

and multiplayer . . . . . . its lagging already and . . . . .

 

[kid41212003]

kid:

you say 100ms for FPS, 300ms for others.

thats client <->server.

we're talking INPUT delay. 100ms before your mouse click registers, which then has to go from onlive to the game host, back to onlive, then back to you.

you're literally running the game via a proxy, another step to increase the ping - only this time, not just the game but the "PC" is remote as well.

That's a round trip for sending a signal and then receive a reply (a successful ping).

Which mean, you input a signal to the device which is <1ms, and then it's being transfered to the servers, at the servers all the data are processed includes:

3D Rendering, communicate between clients (multi-player games), so basicly all the multi-players signals are locally, effectively reduced latency.

Then, datas transfered back to clients, all this happened under <80ms (<1000 miles) according to the video.

That's an dedicate servers in some ways, even a normal computer can host games nowsday (mw2 ).

Smooth gameplay = 60FPS

1 second = 1000 ms, 1000ms / 60 frames = ~16 ms/1 frame

16 ms*5 frames = 80 ms

That's mean 5 frames are late compare to playing/rendering locally (zero ms ping). It's considering very good latency for online gaming.

 

[Chryonn]

ten years from now this will be the norm and we'll wonder how we ever lived without cloud computing. until then i'll stick to buying expensive hardware and crank up my in-game options to maximum.

 

[99vw]

short version: way too much controller input lag, no one will use it.

The only way this would work is if you had a really low ping connection to the servers - like the onlive server was hosted on your ISPs network, or locally in a LAN style event.


There is a really big flaw with that 1000 mile crap as well.

Heres an example:

I'm about 200KM away from my ISP's data center. i get 35ms ping just to them. What that means is that the distance from my ISP to this onlive is what would matter - and theres 35ms as a MINIMUM starting point.

And i dunno about you guys, but i can sure feel the lag in MP games at say... 150ms. how do you think its going to feel with 50-100ms PER BUTTON PRESS

This! In the video they speak of how 80ms is where you start noticing a difference in game play. Yes, in an online multi player match it maybe when you start to really notice it.

However, with this system it would add 80+ms just for the input lag of the controller, then you have to factor in the input lag of the monitors and the controller itself which will have a slight input lag.

Put all these together and I would think you would have a horrible experience especially with fps's.
However, I have never tried it so I really wouldn't know. I do think that there can be a market for this kind of thing though.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Isn't the point of cloud computing to reduce lag and end user interference but allowing each "terminal" to take on some of the load? I think it could work given enough funding and developer backing. However it would be a bigger disaster for gaming than the consolazation of the PC we are currently facing.

 

[DRDNA]

Wow this is totally awsome as long as you like games like card games and board games

 

[Mussels]

Isn't the point of cloud computing to reduce lag and end user interference but allowing each "terminal" to take on some of the load? I think it could work given enough funding and developer backing. However it would be a bigger disaster for gaming than the consolazation of the PC we are currently facing.

onlive doesnt exactly fit the definition of cloud computing perfectly, but its a spinoff of it.

 

[MadClown]

It will work, just expect a variable Delay between your input and the sever's response depending on your connect to the server. If people are able to afford internet fast enough to get a 5ms response time, round trip, to an Onlive server, then they can afford a good pc and/or a few game consoles. They know this, and that is why they allow you to spectate other people live while they play and make videos and such, because they need every gimmick they can to make up for the ping issue.

 

[Mussels]

It will work, just expect a variable Delay between your input and the sever's response depending on your connect to the server. If people are able to afford internet fast enough to get a 5ms response time, round trip, to an Onlive server, then they can afford a good pc and/or a few game consoles. They know this, and that is why they allow you to spectate other people live while they play and make videos and such, because they need every gimmick they can to make up for the ping issue.

i dunno what its like where you are, but around here (and as far as i aware) you cant "buy" faster ping. you're either located right next to your ISP's data center, or you're not. Its all about the location, and not about the price.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

lol it dosent matter for me im in the frigid north east usa and if onlive is even close to me it will be boston which i get a steady 60ms ping during off hours and ill hit 70ms during peak hours thats at 150mile distance now factor in 300miles and the games unplayable so there claim wont work at least not till the USA gets a better internet backbone so to speak and here in the good ol usa the supposed (used loosely here and with sarcasm) may claim to be #1 but our internet sucks compared to other so called lesser nations (not by any means)

 

[MilkyWay]

another problem with this is that the hardware still has to be somewhere

if its not at your house as in a local machine its at a data centre somewhere so why not just buy a pc and do it yourself like we are just now?

i guess what they could do is get discounts on servers for buying in bulk but it wouldnt be enough of a difference

not even counting online multiplayer singleplayer will suffer too because of input lag, like you click a button it happens 3 seconds later

prices of games will be fixed but if i buy a disk or even digital downloads i can shop for the cheapest price with onlive its set, pretty much like steam they set the prices

 

[OnBoard]

another problem with this is that the hardware still has to be somewhere

if its not at your house as in a local machine its at a data centre somewhere so why not just buy a pc and do it yourself like we are just now?

i guess what they could do is get discounts on servers for buying in bulk but it wouldnt be enough of a difference

Everyone should really watch the 48min video, it answers just about everything (and was quite fun).

They plan to update their system every 6months with latest AMD/INTEL/ATI/NVIDIA and for 2d games they use just prosessor (to keep cooling cost down).

Yeah you can buy a PC and play locally, but in a year something comes that doesn't run anymore. If you play with onlive you are constantly update with "your" system.

Wheather it works or not IRL is to be seen. Anyhow it's just USA, nowhere else. They have 4 datacenters there that cover most of the land. Montana was out of luck. One in west coast, 2 in east coast and one somewhere in the middle.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

they will need more then 4 data centers to get this up and running at leastr 3 west cost 4 midland and 3 east coast to distribute properly untill then this has fail written all over it

 

[r9]

The internet connectivity will evolve and I would say that this would be the future not just for gaming but for all software. Yes there still be geeks like us with custom hardware . Software companies are trying to make the software as simple as possible to common user and what can be more simple than this. Plus put live support that would setup your desktop to your likings. No hardware malfunctions no upgrades not paying full price of the software you use all of this for a monthly fee. I personally consider this to be the most boring scenario but for so called ordinary user would be perfect situation.

 

[InTeL-iNsIdE]

Sorry to burst some bubbles here people, but I work in the software industry, whats more I compete with Citrix on a daily basis, and if this was even possible then these guys would have to have some serious $ behind them to claim to do what they do, not only that it would be a break through cause even citrix cant do what these guys claim to do and they would need some kind of super protocol to deliver a game over a typical adsl/wan line.

Like I said I compete with citrix on a daily basis, and one thing you cant say about Citrix is they dont know how to make the best of bandwidth and delivering a user experience, they have been delivering apps on their own ica protocol since the 14k dial up days and are good at what they do, they do it damn well, but they couldnt stream a hd movie over a WAN connection 200ms away, let alone a full dx3d interactive game, I call BS on this, unless these guys are using some new protocol and serious hardware compression its BS end of.

 

[KieX]

Great concept, but way too ahead of it's time (a.k.a. doomed to failure in IT world). The current internet infrastructure just can't deliver lag free Crysis. For now they might end up only being a better alternative to really crappy online flash and 2D games. Their only real market ATM would be netbooks and other lower powered devices. That and all the companies that make their money from the games industry won't go out quietly.

 

[r9]

The demo looks pretty real to me and awesome by the way. Yes I`m aware that a lot of people wont be satisfied with it because of the quality of the internet and distance from the data centers running those games. But in time everything evolves so does the internet providers. Some time ago I read from some one from Sony Microsoft or Nintendo I`m not sure who it was saying that it is easily possible that this generation of home consoles would be the last generation and I can easy see why. These guys are marketing and showing games and this technology can be just much more then this let say watching 10000000 channels in small windows before choosing the one you like.
I would say that they have the technology and in little time the internet should step up in speed and latency and that they would have a winner. And I could easy see similar offering and competition from Microsoft and Sony.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

Onlive goes live June 17, 2010

The 1st 25,000 who sign up will get 3 months of servers (valued at $14.95 per month) for free. This does not include rental or purchase of the games just the service per month (from what I understood). Rental and purchased of games are a separate fee to be announced at a later time. What you do get for $14.95 is game demos, video profiles and community features.
source

 

[DrPepper]

The ping alone is what puts me off. Also since I have a pc I don't really see the need to pay a monthly fee to play game's I already have. However I doubt we are the intended market.

 

[KingPing]

Of course that ping is for US, and as the US is the biggest market, this (at least in the first years) will not be seen for example in south america or asia (i live in argentina) so i was thinking about this onlive service, and it scare the S*** out of me. why?

let see what could happen:

option 1) it fails

option 2) PC gaming remains as a niche, and this service mostly affects Sony and Microsoft, so this could be the end of the consoles, at least as we know them.

option 3) similar as above, only PC market is too small, so gaming hardware prices will rise.

Im quite skeptic about this.