OnLive... streaming games w/o hardware

[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.

[ZEE]

.

[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 ****ty 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 ****ty 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