OnLive... streaming games w/o hardware

[Zero]

http://www.gamespot.com/features/620...opslot;title;3

By: Sarju Shah, GameSpot - Posted on March 24, 2009

Check out our coverage of the GDC 2009 OnLive Press Conference for more information about this new technology!

Flash Player 9 is required to watch this video.

Imagine playing a computer game without any hassles. Drivers, troubleshooting, installations, compatibility, performance--all thrown out the window. Upgrading? A thing of the past. All you have to do is click on the game, and seconds later, you're playing. That's what OnLive will deliver. Should it work half as well as advertised, expect to see the gaming world thrown into upheaval by a box no bigger than a deck of playing cards. The story gets even more unbelievable when you factor in price. According to company reps, OnLive intends to significantly undercut every existing console on the market.

At its core, OnLive is a subscription service similar to cable TV or Netflix. In other respects, OnLive is what you get when you pump something like YouTube full of steroids. Instead of just watching a pile of videos, you're streaming gameplay at HDTV resolutions and controlling your character in real time. You get Crysis on your HDTV at the highest-quality settings--run by a computer that's hundreds of miles from your doorstep. It's really no wonder Rearden Labs spent the better part of a decade perfecting and designing OnLive.
It's tiny Really tiny Front ports Another angle OnLive labeled
Hardware

Whenever a console comes out, we tend to dig in to all the gritty details--pixels pushed, mips mopped, and so forth. Sony has volumes written about its Cell processor, just like Microsoft and its tri-core CPU, not to mention their associated GPUs. By contrast, the humble little OnLive MicroConsole comes with practically nothing--just two USB connectors, a network jack, some AV outs, and some random bits and bobs stuffed in there. To make things even stranger, OnLive will run on just about any PC or Mac through a Web browser plug-in without the MicroConsole. Install the OnLive program and you're done. Even the lowly netbooks will run the newest games with high-quality details and excellent frame rates.
onLive

Here's how it all works.

All the magic happens elsewhere, and the hardware sitting in those rooms is considerably more powerful than anything the current consoles offer. Gaming PCs in far-off server rooms sit filled to the brim with SLI setups, quad-core CPUs, gobs of RAM, and ridiculous RAID arrays to make load times a thing of the past. In its racks, OnLive has a slew of machines ranging from the mundane for simpler games to SLI rigs to power the most demanding games. Every six months, OnLive will upgrade the computers to take advantage of new CPUs, GPUs, and more to give you access to the most powerful hardware available.

Surprisingly, OnLive already has competition on the horizon. A startup by the name of OTOY aims to provide high speed gaming, HD movie playback and more, by using a web browser plugin. The driving force behind OTOY is AMD’s Fusion Render Cloud, a supercomputer class machine capable of petaflop processing power with over 1,000 GPUs. In a conversation with Jules Urbach, OTOY’s CEO, he mentioned that OTOY will be entering beta in the summer and should be up and running in the year

simply playing games ala remote desktop. i wonder if this will succeed.

[Asher]

No, it won't. I posted details post explaining why earlier, but they were deleted. So **** it.

Just, no.

[FrostyBoy]

If it won't work, why are they doing it?

[FrostyBoy]

Can consoles even support remote desktop?

If it can, can I play a PS3 game on my PC? Is it technically possible?

[Asher]

If it won't work, why are they doing it?

Same reason people made Gizmondo and the Phantom console. You take investor money with a slick salespitch without thinking through how well it'll work in the real world.

[Asher]

Can consoles even support remote desktop?

If it can, can I play a PS3 game on my PC? Is it technically possible?

No.............

[FrostyBoy]

Do you have any articles to back up your claims? I'm seriously interested to know if this is feasible because I have had this idea ever since I learned of remote desktop. The serious problem lies in speed. If they can overcome that, it should be possible.

[Asher]

Do you have any articles to back up your claims? I'm seriously interested to know if this is feasible because I have had this idea ever since I learned of remote desktop. The serious problem lies in speed. If they can overcome that, it should be possible.

What the **** do you want articles for?

I'll give a quick list of what should be common sense:

1. Latency. This system means this is the loop controller input actions must take: Input -> internet transfer [which has significant latency] -> Server-PC running game -> capture and encode Video -> internet [which has significant latency] -> decode Video -> Output.
There's no way around this, this will introduce significantly more latency than the typical model: Input -> console -> output.

2. Bandwidth. 5Mbps for HD gaming, this is about 2.2GB of total bandwidth per hour of use. Not to mention any network activity if it's multiplayer game. Bandwidth caps are cropping up everywhere, the highest for Rogers (the largest ISP in Canada) is 95GB per month, but most people have 50GB caps here. That is ridiculously expensive.

3. Quality. 5Mbps is ridiculously low bitrate for reasonable HD quality, especially considering this will be real-time encoded which means it'll be single-pass with lots of the quality-improving heuristics disabled as they're too expensive. By comparison, Bluray encodes (with the same codecs) are around 30Mbps. You'll get extensive compression artifacts in the game, from blurring to macroblocking.

4. Cost. To run modern PC games, you need beefy hardware. This is precisely the problem they're trying to avoid, but they can't. They're just transferring the cost from you to them for the upfront capital, so they can charge you monthly fees to be able to access it over the internet with a laggy, blurry result. It'll cost a fortune to build any kind of large system capable of many simultaneous games of, say, Crysis or Halo. Ridiculously expensive, not to mention ridiculously power-hungry and HOT (and hard and expensive to cool.)

5. Scalability. When games are released, they have usage spikes. Think Halo 3 or GTA4 when they're released. It's impossible for them to have enough "servers" available for these kinds of high-demand, spikey-usage games for everyone to use at once. Which means you'll be paying a monthly subscription and dealing with lots of "sorry, server too busy" or extensive queues to use the product you're paying for. I know for a fact they're not going to want to increase their capacity 10 fold just to cover the peaks and valleys of usage time, but they'd have to to not piss off their customers.

That's it in a nutshell. But as I said, this really should be kind of intuitive.

[FrostyBoy]

What the **** do you want articles for?

Credibility. I want articles on OnLive.

1. Latency. This system means this is the loop controller input actions must take: Input -> internet transfer [which has significant latency] -> Server-PC running game -> capture and encode Video -> internet [which has significant latency] -> decode Video -> Output.
There's no way around this, this will introduce significantly more latency than the typical model: Input -> console -> output.


2. Bandwidth. 5Mbps for HD gaming, this is about 2.2GB of total bandwidth per hour of use. Not to mention any network activity if it's multiplayer game. Bandwidth caps are cropping up everywhere, the highest for Rogers (the largest ISP in Canada) is 95GB per month, but most people have 50GB caps here. That is ridiculously expensive.

3. Quality. 5Mbps is ridiculously low bitrate for reasonable HD quality, especially considering this will be real-time encoded which means it'll be single-pass with lots of the quality-improving heuristics disabled as they're too expensive. By comparison, Bluray encodes (with the same codecs) are around 30Mbps. You'll get extensive compression artifacts in the game, from blurring to macroblocking.

Agreed, but maybe they found a way to beat this problem?

4. Cost. To run modern PC games, you need beefy hardware. This is precisely the problem they're trying to avoid, but they can't. They're just transferring the cost from you to them for the upfront capital, so they can charge you monthly fees to be able to access it over the internet with a laggy, blurry result. It'll cost a fortune to build any kind of large system capable of many simultaneous games of, say, Crysis or Halo. Ridiculously expensive, not to mention ridiculously power-hungry and HOT (and hard and expensive to cool.)

Build server farms in the north pole?

5. Scalability. When games are released, they have usage spikes. Think Halo 3 or GTA4 when they're released. It's impossible for them to have enough "servers" available for these kinds of high-demand, spikey-usage games for everyone to use at once. Which means you'll be paying a monthly subscription and dealing with lots of "sorry, server too busy" or extensive queues to use the product you're paying for. I know for a fact they're not going to want to increase their capacity 10 fold just to cover the peaks and valleys of usage time, but they'd have to to not piss off their customers.

There are ways to control this if it were to become a problem.

All of the problems I am aware of, but perhaps there is a way to make it work. That's the problem with you Asher, you take it as it is, you don't dream.

[Asher]

Credibility. I want articles on OnLive.

The thing was ****ing announced just hours ago, what the ****?

Gamespot has the streaming video of the Q&A after with the OnLive guys and they didn't say ANYTHING substantial. Lots of dodging, squirming, and vague niceties.

Agreed, but maybe they found a way to beat this problem?

Yes. Not only have they found a way to reinvent the entire internet infrastructure overnight, they've found a way to eliminate internet latency! Not only THAT, but their 5 Mbps won't count towards anyone's bandwidth caps because it is MAGIC. Not only THAT, but they've invented a new codec that's better than everything thousands of PhDs and specialized companies have done in the past decade such that its 5Mbps HD stream is completely indistinguishable from an uncompressed local image stream!

Build server farms in the north pole?

Yes! Because that would help with their latency problem!

There are ways to control this if it were to become a problem.

No, there's not. Which is precisely why you didn't say what they are! The only way to "control" this is for them to buy enough servers to hit peak usage, which is an insane proposition. MS had to spend billions of dollars just to set up the Xbox Live infrastructure, which only does the network operations which is nowhere near to being the same magnitude as controlling the whole show like they are proposing. And even then, with the billions of dollars and a mature infrastructure, Xbox Live still has issues during peak times (eg, holidays).

I don't think you can comprehend all of the issues here. They're not minor things they can "work around", if you understood how the internet works and if you understood how video codecs work and if you understood how cloud computing works, you'd realize how ridiculous this concept is.

All of the problems I am aware of, but perhaps there is a way to make it work. That's the problem with you Asher, you take it as it is, you don't dream.

I dream just fine, I've got lots of lofty goals. I just know technology, and I know this is an investor scam and/or a bunch of people who don't understand what they're getting into. I worked with cloud computing and distributed compute clusters back at IBM as well. Latency is an issue on 10 Gigabit local networks for christ sakes for compute clusters, let alone the INTERNET.

[snoopy369]

Hmmm... I'm not sure I agree with the extremity of Asher's point of view, but in general, I doubt this is practical at the moment as well. And I doubt it will supplant consoles anytime soon.

It probably has life with games like Civ [which need much lower resolution, and have much less changing per second to refresh] and perhaps things like the Sims, or even MMOs (which already have a server doing a lot of the work, and thus might have a bit more capability to manage the server infrastructure/etc., though they of course aren't managing the graphics).

I think the idea is cool, but it's got to be at least 10 years out (if not much more) before it's practical. I think the real roadblock, though, is that PCs are getting better and better at handling video - I'm not sure how much better quality gaming graphics is going to get, compared to the vast improvements of every generation in PCs. That means that the target audience for this (people with PCs that can't handle games, and/or too stupid to figure out how to install games) is getting smaller and smaller. If anything kills consoles, it will be the PC, not a server, I'd think. At least not until/unless a few major things change, anyhow.

[Jon Miller]

I thought 'cool, my netbook could play Civ'.

But for any of the halo/etc it is just really stupid.

edit: And I think I can already do it just be messing with my desktop at home.

JM

[Wiglaf]

It is great to have a poster who knows what he is talking about. This whole situation reminds me of when I tried to build a computer made out of paper when I was in the first grade. I want to reiterate that I believed in Santa Clause until I had sex with a girl dressed like an elf. That sort of killed it

[Zero]

well ps3 lets you play PSP and PS1 games remotely using your PSP. I've tried it and it's not too bad. If current gen console has remote playing enabled (which they do not) I suppose it's possible and a possibility for the future.

I too think this isn't feasible. If we assume this succeeds, how are they gonna run the millions of games that gamers will play? Asher might have "extreme P.O.V" and while the idea sounds nice, I do question the practicality of it.

Plus the controller looks like crap. :-p

still, i'd like to see someone argue in favor of why it will be possible. it would be interesting to hear.

[SlowwHand]

Wiglaf, just so you know that all aren't ignoring you, I find your trolling intriguing many times. How does a human brain come up with some of the things you rant is beyond me. My hat is off in wonder.

[SlowwHand]

Wiglaf, just so you know that all aren't ignoring you, I find your trolling intriguing many times. How does a human brain come up with some of the things you rant is beyond me. My hat is off in wonder.

[Unimatrix11]

Well, as i said in the other thread, i think, Asher is 100% right on this (and even let´s us know why, while behaving here! kudoos for that, asher!). 100% even to the point, where he really shouldnt have to tell people the obvious, as it is extraordinary claim (´it could be possible´) that requires extra ordinary proof, not the obvious. I mean, Civ IV has been brought up, but even when i play with one buddy over a direct 100MBit connection, the lag (term used in the stupid way - you know what i mean) is more than just noticeable already.

[AAHZ]

.

[Tuberski]

What the **** do you want articles for?

That's it in a nutshell. But as I said, this really should be kind of intuitive.

I'm not the computer expert you are, but the first thing I thought was, "bull****".

ACK!

[snoopy369]

If you didn't mind utterly shitty resolution, it would be pretty easy, actually. It's really the resolution and refresh rate that causes the main problem - both in server ability to serve the games, and in bandwidth. Remote computing and all of its variants works well for the business world where you don't have to have constant refreshes, so you're really only streaming a small amount of data at any one point; the latest POC we tested along those lines was something like 180kbps for 1440x900 resolution, for example. Think about that; 1440x900 is slightly under 1.5 million pixels; if you want 30FPS, say, to refresh the entire screen 30 times a second means 45m pixels PER SECOND, and at even 16 bit color (64k colors) that's what, 90 MBPS uncompressed?. To get that down to 180kbps, that means you're only refreshing probably 15FPS or so (45MBPS full refresh), compressing to hell and gone (say 1/8 of max), still 5 MBPS, and then only refreshing 3 to 4% of the screen per refresh. No way you can do that with a video game - even Civ would not look decent with that, and it's probably one of the modern games most easily adapted to this.

Now, if you wanted to do something with server-based games that was actually feasible and accomplished something useful, perhaps you could distribute the computing between the desktop and the server, letting the server handle physics calculations, for example, which might be more difficult for a lower-spec PC to handle, and leaving the PC to handle the images and such. That's not so different from how MMOs work, though I don't think they tend to have difficult physics calculations; but AFAIK they handle the game processing on the server end (ie, what events occur, who wins battles, etc.) and pass the results on to the client, whose primary purpose is to display images and accept/translate user input. I'm not sure you could sell such a service meaningfully, though, unless you had a REALLY good physics system; and still it probably would stay in the MMO realm, I imagine.

[Elok]

This does sound, uh, highly dubious. It's essentially turning your computer into a TV and the internet into a PlayStation, no? Even if it does work, why not save up the monthly fees and buy a better computer that can actually play the games? Asher already addressed every other problem I can think of, and several I can't, since I don't know computers, but on the face of it this sounds like an absurd solution. It's like, "pass all your math tests by installing a hidden transceiver in your skull that lets you communicate directly and secretly with Stephen Hawking from across the globe!" Dude, if you're going to go to all that effort, why not just study for the test, or cheat in more conventional ways? There has to be a simpler answer to your problems...

[Asher]

If you didn't mind utterly shitty resolution, it would be pretty easy, actually. It's really the resolution and refresh rate that causes the main problem - both in server ability to serve the games, and in bandwidth. Remote computing and all of its variants works well for the business world where you don't have to have constant refreshes, so you're really only streaming a small amount of data at any one point; the latest POC we tested along those lines was something like 180kbps for 1440x900 resolution, for example. Think about that; 1440x900 is slightly under 1.5 million pixels; if you want 30FPS, say, to refresh the entire screen 30 times a second means 45m pixels PER SECOND, and at even 16 bit color (64k colors) that's what, 90 MBPS uncompressed?. To get that down to 180kbps, that means you're only refreshing probably 15FPS or so (45MBPS full refresh), compressing to hell and gone (say 1/8 of max), still 5 MBPS, and then only refreshing 3 to 4% of the screen per refresh. No way you can do that with a video game - even Civ would not look decent with that, and it's probably one of the modern games most easily adapted to this.

The main problem is latency, not bandwidth and computation.

Some games now are disconnecting the rendering of the game from the main game loop for various reasons, the most recent example being Killzone 2. Because of this, there's VERY minute perceived "lag" or inconsistency with how manipulation of the controls correspond to movement on the screen. We're talking about 10ms or less. But it's already got many Killzone 2 players up in arms. The controls feel "mushy" or "disconnected" and it impacts the playability of the game.

Now take that sensation and increase it by an order of magnitude or more -- which is just internet latency alone -- and add on top of that compression artifacts, and you've got a real stinker on your hands.

[Kuciwalker]

Asher didn't really leave anything more to be said.

[Q Classic]

FrostyBoy, if you think this is going to work when these OnLive people release it, or even in the next couple of years...

...I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

[snoopy369]

The main problem is latency, not bandwidth and computation.

Some games now are disconnecting the rendering of the game from the main game loop for various reasons, the most recent example being Killzone 2. Because of this, there's VERY minute perceived "lag" or inconsistency with how manipulation of the controls correspond to movement on the screen. We're talking about 10ms or less. But it's already got many Killzone 2 players up in arms. The controls feel "mushy" or "disconnected" and it impacts the playability of the game.

Now take that sensation and increase it by an order of magnitude or more -- which is just internet latency alone -- and add on top of that compression artifacts, and you've got a real stinker on your hands.

That's obviously a good point, but I have a feeling that could be worked around more easily than the bandwidth/resolution issue. You could play around with building in lag, for example, based on the ping; it wouldn't be perfect but it might be doable.

At least your MP lag would be nonexistent

[Asher]

No, the MP lag would be even worse.

[snoopy369]

Well, I mean the lag between you and another player's machine. Since they're the same machine, there's no lag... (well, lightspeed, I guess? Or perhaps LAN-level lag if you assume the odds are good you're not on the same physical machine) The lag between him doing something and his character(s) doing something isn't really relevant to you, is it? It won't slow the game down. He'll just suck more than you.

[Asher]

Well, I mean the lag between you and another player's machine. Since they're the same machine, there's no lag... (well, lightspeed, I guess?

They won't necessarily be on the same machine. They probably won't.

There's 4 datacentres planned in the US alone, not to mention the fact that you won't necessarily only be playing against other OnLive members (unless they wall off the MP, which would be incredibly stupid).

[snoopy369]

I was obviously assuming the scenario that you are playing with other OnLive members. And even if they're across the country, lag on a high-speed connection even across the US is not a concern; it's people with slow connections (or, connections full of torrent-used bandwidth) are the larger issue. (With the caveat that I don't play FPSs, where lag is the most annoying from what I understand; so perhaps people do mind the sort of lag you get from a high-speed connection across the country.)

[Kuciwalker]

No, the MP lag would be even worse.

Actually, the MP lag should be about the same, discounting whatever prediction the local engine usually does. It might look a little jerkier but the results would be identical.

edit: assuming reasonable positioning of their datacenters, of course