Print
After seven years of stealth development at Rearden Labs (a startup incubator), OnLive today unveiled itself as a new game service to deliver on-demand games. Basically, instead of running your games on a PC or console at home, you connect your HDTV to a small MicroConsole which receives compressed video from a remote server that actually renders and processes your games. The immediate benefits of the service is its low entry cost, since you don't have to build a high-end gaming PC or invest $500 on a next-gen gaming console. Games purchased with OnLive are activated on remote servers and the only data that is streamed to you is gameplay video and audio. You never have to download software, patches, or handle physical media. Think of it as video-on-demand but for games.
We met with OnLive's founders at Rearden Labs last week to get a sneak preview of the service, try out some games, and grill the developers about how OnLive actually works.
Streaming video from Youtube takes seconds to buffer, and that's for low-resolution clips. How can OnLive stream gameplay that's rendered in real-time without any delay? Their secret sauce is a new video compression techology that they call "Interactive Video Compression". Cutting-edge data servers farms utilize massive parallel processing to reduce gameplay video into a proprietary compression format that integrates the randomness of the existing internet broadband architecture into the codec. Steve Perlman, the founder of OnLive, used to work at Apple, and helped develop the first versions of Quicktime, so he has a long experience with video codec and compression.
This isn't a technology that is easily duplicated, either. OnLive has filed over 100 patents to protect their tech, which uses both custom-brewed hardware (Nvidia has been a development partner) and software.
Even though OnLive calls its hardware a MicroConsole and uses a game controller that looks like a hybrid of the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 gamepads, the physical hardware that's running OnLive games is 100% PCs, meaning that the games run in Windows. That's why the 16+ titles being shown on the system are all PC games, including Mirror's Edge, GRID, Company of Heroes, and Lego Batman.
The actual PC hardware is a little more than what you'd find on your typical gamer's desk, though. OnLive data centers run a variety of enterprise-level servers with varying system configurations. Some servers may be more processor intensive while others have multiple GPUs -- the top end rigs in the current OnLive server hive utilize dual Nvidia 8800 GTX cards to give you playable framerates on graphics-intensive games like Crysis.
Depending on what game you select to play, OnLive will pick a server that meets a "framerate boundary" requirement they've attributed for that game. Extensive testing on their end lets them know what server hardware is required for each game, and you OnLive has promised to upgrade their server hardware regularly to keep up with the maximum spec requirements of upcoming next-gen titles.
Your personal game files, game state, and OnLive profile is kept on 16-drive RAID arrays, so loading games is much faster with OnLive than at home. In our test of the service, we loaded up a Crysis multiplayer map in under 5 seconds, and blazed from the main menu to a playable game of GRID in less than 30 seconds. OnLive is making a big deal about its ability to upgrade hardware at no cost to you, but we think having insanely fast load times is going to be one of the service's best features. In fact, OnLive founder and CEO Steve Perlman told us that one of his personal goals is to one day eliminate the loading screen completely from gamers' lives.
But the thing we find most interesting about OnLive is that this is actually PC gaming masking itself as a console platform. While it's true that Xbox 360 and PS3 compatibility will eventually come to the service, the games they're demoing right now are all PC games. If OnLive really takes off, game publishers are going to find more incentive to develop high quality PC games without worrying about minimum spec, hardware compatibility, and piracy. It's possible that OnLive will emerge to be the salvation of PC gaming -- a notion that we find fairly exciting.
You don't need fancy a gaming PC or expensive console to use OnLive, but the service does have one big technical requirement: your house must be equipped with broadband service. At the bare minimum, you must have a 1.5Mbit/sec internet connection to play OnLive games at SDTV resolution (720x480 widescreen) and at least 5Mbit/sec of bandwidth for HDTV gaming at 720p (1280x720). OnLive estimates that 71% of households in the US meet the minimum requirements for the service, while 26% are capable of the HD service (more if you just look at the gaming population).
Before signing up for OnLive, you'll be required to test your throughput and latency to OnLive servers to ensure that you're qualified for the service. Keep in mind that since gaming with OnLive using lots of bandwidth, you will have to throttle back your downloads and bittorrent traffic when using it.
Comments are closed on this article
Draeconix
May 03, 2009 at 3:57pm
A while back I read an article either in Xbox magazine or MaximumPC or even /. I forget which, that talked about a single console replacing everything. I applauded this idea and actually had thought about the concept when I was looking into "enhancing" my first original Xbox. When I saw all the tools avaiable and the applications avaiable I imagined a single box capable of playing any game, movie or other media you through at it. Throw in a streaming capability and you have living room domination. This service along with Hulu and the like seems to be the first step towards this goal. The biggest limitation I see at this time is the ISP's. The infrastructure in this country needs to be improved drastically. Hey I know! Let's start a public works project like FDR did in the Great Depression to rebuild the electrical and telecommunications grid. We would get a better infrastructure and solve some of our economic woes as well.
becks
April 06, 2009 at 10:56am
AS long as my ping is low enough, the price is reasonable..say $10.00/month I'm all for it. Glad to hear Hacks (hopefully) will be eliminated !!! Never understood the mentality of people who hack to win. And if they can incorporate movie downloads...this will answer all my problems. I have played on Steam, enjoyed clans in CS:S, COD and WAW....For the most part Clans are over rated. Fortunately I do have FIOS and a 120Hz 50inch 1080P Aquos LCD. So for me this is a must have. I have held off from investing upwards of a $1,000 (by the time your all said and done) for a console like a PS3. It is not the cost so much as it is the lack of return for my investment with a console...Especially since they have a life span of about 3- 4 years. Plus I would welcome not having to invest $2,300 (since I can't, and choose not to build my on rig) in a Gamers Rig which, doesn't even include a monitor. Plus...I won't have to worry about backing up my profile for a paticular game when (Not If) I need to reload my XP Pro OS !!!
Bring It On & Let The Games Begin.
Neckername
May 12, 2009 at 3:30pm
First things first, i know im not the first one to see these problems. One, eventually the amount you spend on service monthly fee (because no service like this will survive for long without charging customers extra) will accumulate to a larger dollar figure than just buying a gaming PC. Second, even Blizzard, Second Life, and even ISPs cant guarantee 100% service reliability. So for the ppl that play WoW on a home P, when the server is down for work, you can just switch to another game to play, if the OnLive server or servers go down, you cant play any games at all if u just use OnLive. Second, 80ms seems high, but you have to remember when you play games online on a home PC, the latency of your connection added to the latency between ISPs, Servers, and the other player to his ISP, what do you get, you get the time it takes for another player to see your actions. The 1.5 MB/s minimum is for the video, while the latency is for the control response. So ppl with the 15Mbit/s connection or faster will be ELLIGABLE to join OnLive. By Elligable, i mean if your community isn't hogging bandwidth that day. For those with Fiber or some kind of expensive connection, you prolly dont have to worry (as long as your latency is under 80MBs). So with all of these flaws and the benefits listed in the article, is it worth buying into? Maybe if you can use it as a service where you can play games away from home, and somehow play the same game you bought with your hard drive on your own computer as well. It is good for those who can't afford a fancy gaming computer, or who just want to play games and not care about quality. However, if you're an enthusiast or a gamer like me, the cons outweigh the pros. However, to see that technology has come this far is amazing, and with the help of the FCC's broadband to everyone plans, and DOCSIS 3.0 (search it on google if u dont know wat it is), this technology could benefit many people in the future.
[url]http://www.gameplayersanonymous.com/[/url]
etsugua
March 30, 2009 at 4:16pm
This is a new beast entirely. One that can devour them all IF (and that's a pretty big if) they can get it to work. Technically, you could play Crysis on a netbook with all settings set to high using the mentioned browser option.
And that could be a problem. Think about it -- if they are successful and this idea takes off, whats to stop OnLive from deciding they are going to standardize on one platform -- say AMD/ATI? It could effectively kill innovation. Game developers would also be more likely to develop for the OnLive platform rather than anticipating the next generation of PC hardware because OnLive doesn't want to upgrade their servers -- and lets face it, we all want to play the newest, most demanding games out there, which will make it silly for OnLive to upgrade only some of their servers.
If it wasn't for the compitition between Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo, we would all still be using Atari's. Unless someone else comes along (SteamCloud?) and champion's better hardware capability, this could ultimately push gaming, all gaming, to a grinding hault in terms of technical innovation.
And one more practical drawback -- no internet, no game. period.
QUINTIX256
March 29, 2009 at 6:45pm
as it is generally described. I'd rather own my computing power than rent it.
You can have your recession. I'm not participating.
billysundays
March 26, 2009 at 5:56pm
Everyone can agree OnLive is obviously not PC gaming, its just that it can play PC games, and you all know the distinction. "Cloud" PC gaming, and cloud personal computing in general, would maybe look more like this - you would subscribe to a service, like Onlive, for the processing power of a virtual x86 CPU and a GPU that runs the latest DirectX/OpenGL, and maybe an online virtual drive, but you would still have access to the program files in your own OS enviroment. You would still have to install a game. In my opinion, the ability to program, write and manipulate code, access program files, is what makes a PC a PC.
Something like this is inevitable, but its still a baby and won't blossom into its own for probably another decade. when it does, "cloud" gaming will replace console gaming. PC gaming will still be seen as "dying" while still being the de facto technical standard by which all gaming evolves, aka DirectX/OpenGL.
Pyrophorics
March 26, 2009 at 8:59am
This thing has already failed and it hasn't even been released yet...
Reason?? ISP caps.
ISP's, limiting the worlds communication one connection at a time.
Velcrow
March 25, 2009 at 11:17am
IGN has a good writeup about this at http://pc.ign.com/articles/965/965535p1.html
Short take: It will be subscription based (price unknown), and you have to buy or rent the games. Yes, this service will make renting PC games actually possible (legally :p).
Also, IGN states that the bandwith requirements are actually a bit lower than listed, so that might partly mitigate the failure of ISP's to actually provide what they promise. But probably not by much (if even noticable).
horzo
March 25, 2009 at 7:39am
Uhh...how is this good for PC gaming? Looks to me like a PC isn't even required as the control unit can be connected directly to a TV.
Are you making the assumption that more games will be made for PC because of this? Don't bet on it. The logical outcome of this system is no gaming for anyone outside of the control of the service provider. Games will be made for the service, and won't even be availble for purchase on stand-alone systems.
No thanks. This should scare you, not make you happy.
billysundays
March 26, 2009 at 1:25pm
I agree with your concern. Its probable that as more people gravitate towards the conveniance of "the cloud", there'll be less market incentive to give people the ability to have their own "stand-alone systems". And which do you suppose our government prefers in terms of national security. Join the cloud or have the freedom to stand alone?
BoxyBrown
March 25, 2009 at 7:39am
This will lag pretty bad if it catches on. I think there was another company who had this idea for second life and it couldn't overcome the issues with lag when there were a lot of users on its service.
urdead4g
March 25, 2009 at 6:12am
Totally Agree. This is a console, Not a PC.
Save pc gaming with 80ms latency.., makes me sick.Kev.
MAJORzer0
March 25, 2009 at 4:03am
Well I'm not sure how to look at this thing. I'm not sure where their getting their estimates but in the past if I went to the local cable company and asked for broadband they would tell me all types of cool numbers that I never got. You would hear the numbers 1.5 or 2.5 but really the only time you would see that is 3 in the morning on a good day. It seems a bit silly to be asking us yo pay higher rates when the broadband companies are not really giving us what they promised in the first place. If their numbers are based off of what companies say they are giving their clients then they have it all wrong and I hope they are prepared to take a hit.
All in all I want to know where the 71% live so I can buy a new house there. I'm not the only one that would love to have fiber to the home but the companies are too greedy and the economy is in the hole. I'm not seeing this be very productinve for the average gamer unless they host a massive ammount of games and keep everything updated. The biggest cost should be the console and the monthly fees every one pays to play would also have to be minimal if you need to pay for the extra bit for the upgraded broadband bill.
I don't really see this catching on for a wile. Until more people start getting better service from the leeches at their ISP there's no real way for this to step off. Your gonna have to do better then this to pull 75% of the gamers offa their machines (console or pc). I know this is anouther trick to consolodate things and make it easier for the companies and the idea of it gives you warm feelings inside if it was possible. I really don't see the companies meeting the needs to use this new toy unless you pay more hard earned cash that no one has at this time.
Kudos if they get it to work and press on. I'm sure this will catch on eventually but in todays market you may as well be holding on to the tech for later use.
~No one said it would be easy....they just said it was worth it...~
roninnder
March 24, 2009 at 11:44pm
So where am I supposed to get the bandwidth to play this junk? The broadband infrastructure in the US is shameful, especially if compared to just about any other developed country in the world. With ISPs moving away from "unlimited" plans and instating bandwidth caps I have better things to spend my GBs on. Once there is widespread fiber optic service available I'll be ready to look at this
Besides, my xbox 360 and ps3 already have better graphics, and my wii has its interface.
winmaster
March 29, 2009 at 3:26pm
Are you joking. On a good day for consoles and a bad one for PC's, the PC's graphics are a least equal to that of the console, provided that the PC is one that should be used for gamming. Your consoles do not have better graphics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
Draeconix
May 03, 2009 at 3:49pm
Can we please stop the argument over whether the PC or console has better graphics? What matters is how well the graphics are designed in the first place. It is all on the artists. Sure the hardware can render more or less but when it comes down to how good something looks it is all in how much time the designers want to put into making the textures, etc. Conciveably a game can look just as amazing on a console (assuming HD) as on PC So enough of this debate already.
konata
May 17, 2009 at 7:19pm
New GPUs and technology have advanced since the consoles were released.
Many graphics cards can run higher detailed graphics at much much higher resolutions (1080p is smaller that 1200p, a mid-high range graphics card could run at max detail).So, no. PC definately has better graphics. Consoles though have the advantage of multiple player support, direct linking to tv (although now most graphics cards come with a HDMI adapter...), a simpler installation (becoming moot...), online service (although steam is advailable on PCs...), and exclusive games (I want FFXIII on the PC...).
PC's price points per upgrade to the equivalent of console graphics are now equal or even lower due to new hardware releases (take a look at two ATI Radeon HD 4770 in Crossfire and it's quite... godly.) Controllers are advailable if you so wish it, PC's can be used for many other applications, and it provide a mouse and keyboard... (mice are much more accurate/quicker than a joystick... there is no argument here).
So no, PC's have a distinct advantage, hardware wise. The only problem would be pirating, which turns off most devs (However, maintained support such as the updates through steam provide a great insentive to purchase the actual game as well as the online multiplayer servers), and a bit more development required for varience in hardware.
Flame away if you wish.
LatiosXT
March 24, 2009 at 10:55pm
1. Is the latency issue explained? Seriously. If people whine about an input lag of 30ms for some high end monitors, then is it worth this service if my ping times are 50ms+?
2. This isn't going to help PC gaming when there's only one consumer, unless OnLive is going to pay the millions it costs to make games today.
pcjoeyd
March 24, 2009 at 10:25pm
Are game companies going to sell two versions of the games...one for streaming via OnLive and one for purchasing to play on a PC?? Since these games will essentially be PC Games, will we be able to buy the games in the stores or at least be able to purchase and download it from the internet and install on our PC's like we do via EBgames and Steam??
pcjoeyd
March 24, 2009 at 10:21pm
This is a great idea, but will the games be available for us with uber powerful computers?? I don't want to play on my T.V. Will I be able to buy the games and install on my PC like I do now, or will I have to stream from the internet" to play?? Not quite sure I understand how this is going to be great for PC gaming. I might be in the minority here, but I actually like that I have a physical copy of the game and can install on my hard drive and play even if i'm not connected to the internet. How will this work for PC gamers???
immersive
March 24, 2009 at 8:04pm
Even though the games on this system are "computer" games I still fell it is more of a console. The reason behind that is with computer gaming you are not always stuck with the same game. Most of the time there are meny community mods, tweakguides, enhancement packs that you don't get on a console. How can you use mods with this system? They already said you cant! How can you tweak it to make it look its best and still play smooth? Your stuck with the settings they set! Where are the texture packs that make the game look better 2 or 3 years after its been out? None of this can be accomplished with this system.
Computer gaming is a hole lot more then just playing games, its a lifestyl. There are people that come home from work and set down in front of the TV to relax and there are people that hop on the computer to play games. Now take the person that sets down in front of the TV how offten do you hear " There is nothing to watch on TV! I'm so bored." Now take someone like me that gets home and sets in front of the computer. If I start to get bored with a game I can find ways to change it and make it more enjoyable. Not only dose the game turn out more fun but there was more time spent doing something I wanted to do. As a plus maybe I learned something like what a certent file extension is or even something as simple as OMG there is a C:\ drive where everything on my computer is stored!
From such tinkering I have learned how to build my own computer, run my own website, secure my own network, all the way down to basic programing! Don't take that away from future computer gamers. As far as I am concerned computer gaming is a gatway drug to everything computer related.
SO NO THIS IS NOT GOOD FOR COMPUTER GAMING!!!
workingslob
March 24, 2009 at 8:45pm
You are in the minority of gamers. My steam friends list is filled with people who couldn't give two shits about how a game works let alone writing mods themselves. The same applies to their desire to fix their own computers.
Hell, figuring out how Steam worked and downloading games was challenging enough. Nothing against these people, they just want to have fun. To them all the complicated computer BS is as interesting as college football probably is to you.
This is a great move for the PC gaming industry. They can also capture the console only gamers this way too. We all know these people. The ones who just use their computer for myspace and getting infected with anti-virus360.
I think people can enjoy PC gaming without having to subscribe to some nerd lifestyle.
immersive
March 25, 2009 at 6:29pm
So who will be designing the next gen computer games or even the next gen console games? The people interested in making a spreadsheet or workprocessor? That will do wonders for future games.
bumchoda
March 24, 2009 at 8:02pm
There is going to be a subscription fee similar to xbox live. How else would the company be able to pay for their hardware and bandwidth?
johnny3144
March 24, 2009 at 7:30pm
how will this play with ISP with bandwidth cap? say rogers in canada, for 50 dollar a month, you get 60GB a month... if it streams 720p constantly... i think it wont' take more than a week to eat up 60GB for a heavy gamer.
armada439
March 24, 2009 at 6:47pm
720p is okay if its hooked up to an HDTV that I'm sitting 10 feet from.
But what about when I want to use my keyboard an mouse? New games look terrible at low res.
Also, I think costs will make people run away. Suppose I have to pay $5 a month extra to upgrade from 3Mbit to 6 (at&t doesnt have 5). Then this subscription costs $60 a month (atleast). $780 a year? Better off buying a real PC, or a console. Actually, this is ANOTHER win for consoles since they cost ~$400 every 3-5 years!
Draeconix
May 03, 2009 at 4:00pm
What if you go out and buy a new PC game each month? $50 a month times 12 months equals $600 a year. Only a savings of $180. If we want to talk console games then it is the same as the cost you propose.
dipfur
March 24, 2009 at 7:18pm
From what I got from it, which I may have read it wrong, but it sounds like it's going to be a free service...but you are going to have to buy the games. Once you buy the game you can play it whenever.
My biggest problem with this is, what if the internet goes out and you want to play a game...with no game data saved at your house how will you play the game you want if you are using this as your primary means of gaming?
williezzy
March 24, 2009 at 6:46pm
Most AWESOME thing ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't care how much it costs to get, I will buy it mean it comes out.
Willie Townes
zstadt
March 24, 2009 at 5:52pm
Say what you want; claim that it's a console and not a PC, complain about 80ms latency (even though the article said hands-on lag proved imperceptible), or that the servers' balls aren't as big as yours are, blah blah blah... I think this is going to be awesome. And you can quote me on that.
windbane
March 24, 2009 at 5:27pm
I think OnLive will have to change it's name or incur the wrath of Microsoft. The name and colours are pretty darn close to MS's Live service name...
I Jedi
March 24, 2009 at 5:38pm
Maybe M$ should change its Live's name? Seeing as how much their live service sucks anyways...
I Jedi
March 24, 2009 at 4:51pm
I would like to argue that while OnLive may have its foul ups, like 80ms latency, etc, this really will help out gaming on the PC if it makes it. Think about the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people out there who have PC’s not well enough equipped to handle the latest game titles? Well, here is the solution to that problem; especially when certain people cannot afford to upgrade their current system, or even buy a whole new one altogether. It really does sound like a wonderful and ingenious idea to do, but will it catch on is the question on everyone’s mind? I think this will look very, very nice to gamers on the PC if the games can be rented and cheaply and if latency time can be drawn down even further. I think giving a trial for a week or so OnLive would help PC gamers decide if this is a good deal or not.
FRAGaLOT
March 24, 2009 at 5:18pm
Dual 8800's aren't lame. Just because it's not the latest and greatest dosen't mean anything older, barely a YEAR older is lame. Current video capibilities of consoles is a lot LESS than dual 8800's (or even a single 8800) Don't be a hardware snob Sasquatch42. I'd be highly impressed if they can pull this off with the video quality of an nvidia 7200, and DirectX 8 graphics; seriously!
Netram
March 24, 2009 at 4:08pm
80ms on control response? That's ridiculously high, I can't believe they even come out saying that's acceptable. 30ms is high enough when playing multiplayer games. Work it down to 10ms and it'll be acceptable.
I want this to work, it sounds amazing if they pull it off, but I really think they're bringing out a product like this too soon. Plus, saying that it's the salvation of PC, but then say that it doesn't support mods? Sorry, but part of the PC Gaming expeciance, for me at least, it's building, tweaking and adding hardware to my PC, mods, free patches and DLC. I hope they market this towards the console scrubs.
This is a console, not a PC.
FRAGaLOT
March 24, 2009 at 5:09pm
>> Cutting-edge data servers farms utilize massive parallel processing to
reduce gameplay video into a
>> proprietary compression format that
integrates the randomness of the existing internet broadband
>> architecture into the codecThis is total bullshit. It dosen't matter how powerful you're going to encode the video stream, it's how well it DECODES on the other side. I really doubt something the size of a box of cards is going to render HD video games at an acceptable frame rate, and not be lagged by 2 minutes from "real time."
80ms my ass! No ISP can give you that short of a responce time, since it has to travel back and forth for you to see what your responce acctually is. Where the hell are you getting 10ms Netram? LAN parties over gigabit ehternet?
I sware this has got to be a complete load of bullshit. April 1st is comming up soon you know.
nekollx
March 24, 2009 at 6:21pm
you do have to rember for HD the minimum bandwith you have HAS to be 5MBs, SD is 1.5 givign a 5MB pipe BASELINE for HD it COULD be posible.
HeartBurnKid
March 25, 2009 at 4:27pm
Connection speed and latency are not the same thing. Ask anybody who's ever used satellite internet.
MAJORzer0
April 03, 2009 at 2:07am
Satellite is getting better though it went from about a 5-10 second delay down to about 3-8. It all depends on your provider and where the sun if in relation to your satellite. Plus you have to add in weather and the ammount of activity on just that one satellite. If you look at a land line it's way different but the latency is there. You only really have to factor in useage and the ammount of cabling between you and the source. Really though they are both just about as realiable as the other in some areas. The network in some areas have only been give cosmetic cures to run broadband internet. If I didn't have any other way to get faster internet I wouldn't even waste my money on it at all. At leaste satellite has a reason for being the way it is. Other companies are just too broke or just care about the bottom line and their numbers.
It is possible to get this all to work without fiber to the home but they would have to increase the ammount of sources to limit the ammount of users on one source and the ammount of cable between point A and B. I really don't see any companies doing that. Fiber is starting to get cheaper as it's production is becomming faster and easier. I would think putting fiber down is not as much of a dream as it used to be but I'm sure they'll hold out as long as they can.
Total side note, have you ever seen them make fiber? It's a very interesting process. They basically heat up the glass and pull it into the proper length. There's alot more to it then that of course.
~No one said it would be easy....they just said it was worth it...~
