OnLive is, at least in principal, the first thing since Steam to make me think “that’s so painfully simple, its brilliant”. However I can’t help thinking this is profoundly over-ambitious.
Many blogs have likened the recent OnLive marketing at GDC 09 to that of the Phantom (2004) which still probably tops the Vapourware Chart Of Infinity, should such a chart exist. Let me break it down for you. At its most basic level OnLive is a gaming system which requires no computing hardware, save for a box the size of an external hard disk, which claims to play any game, from any console, on your home TV at 720p. Allow me to reiterate: but for the control system (keyboard/mouse/control pad), you need no PC or console to play awesome games through your TV.
How would this work exactly? Well its simple – rather than requiring you to buy your own computer with vast processing and graphical power, capable of running a game installed locally at a playable framerate, OnLive effectively allow you to use their computers, hosted in their datacentres, which you control remotely with your keyboard/whatever. As you mouse left, the signal is sent downstream, the remote computer shifts your player to the left, and sends you back the resulting picture at n Playable-Frames-Per-Second. This is where my problem lies. Massive processing capacity is de rigeur these days what with cloud computing, so not a problem, but being able to send a 720p image back upstream at a framerate quick enough to be playable requires bandwidth the likes of which many people lack. Some extremely crude calculations reveal that 720×480 @ 24fps, even with some compression, requires a consistent downstream speed of over 700kB/s. Thats at least 100kB/s more than my internet ever gives me at its quickest rates. Given that many gamers poo-poo the idea of playing at anything less than 50fps on their 1920×1200 monitors, I don’t have to be a Jedi to predict some serious disappointments on the horizon.
My initial thought is, like I say, ‘thats so brilliant its awesome’, but upon arriving at the Onlive.com website, I discovered the main video couldn’t be downloaded fast enough (on my 8MB connection, practically only 5MB) to play without aching ponderous buffering periods. Exactly which part of waiting is meant to fill me with confidence in their OMFGINSTANT product? Fair enough, it hasn’t launched yet, fair enough it is a good idea in principal, but there’s simply something not quite right here. I’m not a networking expert, but given the two possible options that either a) OnLive have created some amazing system to push data faster than a client’s internet connection can take it, or b) that they simply haven’t factored in people with slow connections, I’m willing to bet Occam’s arse that the latter is more likely.
Even if the UK had a communications infrastructure more advanced than paper cups and string, and assuming OnLive does what it says, I really don’t think many of the current gamers (even the easier to please consolaphiles) would be satisfied with what OnLive is offering when you really get down to raw numbers.
I hope to be proven wrong.
[Edit: There are some curiously similar turns of phrase and terminology in a recent Eurogamer.com post which I have nothing to do with. This Potential Gamer article was posted several hours earlier than the lengthier Eurogamer one]
2 Comments
There’s also the problem of encoding and decoding the video stream at both ends, which will add extra lag. Given that the gamer’s machine can supposedly be low spec, this could get even slower.
In the presentation they did say that ‘SD’ resolutions are the only ones possible on most connections, and that to get HD resolutions you’d need a pretty hefty line. I think that could be a clincher – sure, it’d be awesome to play Crysis at full sexy speed, but if I can only do it at 720×576 or my TV or 800×600 on my computer, what’s the point? Most semi-decent computers from the last 3 years can run Crysis at high settings at resolutions that low. The problem most peple have is running these performance-sucking games at 1680×1050 or above – which OnLive won’t be able to do either due to bandwidth restrictions.
Same issue goes for the console crowd, who have only just got used to high definition resolutions (well, except Wii people, but they don’t count) and aren’t going to want to take a step backwards.
Still, as you say, it’s a fantastic idea. If it DID work, it could also revolutionise game development. Imagine what Crytek could do if they knew every gamer would be able to play their stupidly high tech games at launch. Or Valve, even, if the Hardware Survey became obsolete and they could push their tech as far as their design.
There are some pretty hardcore codec experts in the OnLive team so, while their website is currently crippled by Flash video, I’m sure they can create something pretty amazing to get great quality video down a small pipe.
What I can’t understand is the 2-way lag, especially when it comes to the video compression.
Can’t wait to see what happens.