OnLive killed the game console star?

What if you could stream games, any game, over a decent broadband connection to your PC or Atom-based netbook at the same quality as the PS3? Would you walk away from your beloved console? That's the of hope of Palo Alto-based OnLive. But this is much more than empty rhetoric -- OnLive's been dropping jaws of the press who've seen it working this week. GameDaily dubbed the play "fantastic" after seeing Crysis streamed "smooth" off a server to a plain ol' MacBook laptop. See, OnLive claims to have perfected the interactive video compression technique so that latency is low enough to support on-line multi-player setups. Broadband connections of 1.5Mbps (71% of US homes have 2Mbps or greater) dials the image quality down to Wii levels while 4-5Mbps pipes are required for HD resolution. At the moment, OnLive is showing 16 high-end titles at the Game Developers Conference (GDC) in San Francisco and expects to be able to release new games within the same window as traditional retail launches. The games can be played on "any PC (Windows XP or Vista) or Mac" without the heavy cash-burden of a high-end graphics card, fast disk, quad-core proc, and truck-load of memory. Otherwise, OnLive plans to release what it calls a MicroConsole with Bluetooth (for voice chat) and optical audio-out that can be connected to your HDTV over HDMI -- pricing has not been announced but it will cost less than a $250 Wii. There's a community element too, of course, with OnLive reps boasting about it operating on an "unprecedented scale." This includes the ability to join live games at any point, the creation of "brag clips" that saves the last 10 seconds of game play for sharing, as well as leaderboards, rankings, and the rest. And if you think publishers will never buy in to the model, think again: Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, Take-Two Interactive, Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment, THQ, Epic Games, Eidos, Atari Interactive and Codemasters are already on-board. Expect OnLive to launch this Winter with monthly subscriptions available in "a variety of different pricing packages and tiers, competitively priced to retail." Damn.

Update: GameDaily's quote of 1-ms latency is in reference to encoding/decoding video, not Internet delay, obviously. Added a few more pics including one of the MicroConsole to the gallery.

Gallery: OnLive killed the game console star?

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

[Via FT and Venture Beat]

[Clyzm @ Mar 24th 2009 2:56AM]

Holy shit?

[HunterXI @ Mar 24th 2009 3:18AM]

Hot damn.

[Samboini @ Mar 24th 2009 3:32AM]

Not everyone has unrestricted access to the internet.

[Geert @ Mar 24th 2009 3:55AM]

Wow, a game changing concept.

I do wonder how this could be done commercially, if a server would be hosting Crysis it wouldn't be capable of running a lot of sessions simultaneously and I don't think people will pay a large monthly fee to have their own dedicated server, but then again I assume these guys thought that through.....

[Shinigami @ Mar 24th 2009 4:12AM]

I'm going to wait and see how it actually works. The idea is awesome, saving thousands of $$$ and still being able to play your favorite title in HD is worth it. Unless you have last-gen console, like PS3/Xbox360. Sounds like PC killer (PC components are ridiculously priced).
Too bad it will take a LONG time to see it implemented in my country....

[stefan @ Mar 24th 2009 4:36AM]

@Samboini

then graduate, already!

[flanker22 @ Mar 24th 2009 4:47AM]

obviously there would be too much lag, this concept isnt new they've always had remote desktop.

also im guessing they'll encode/decode a stream which also will cause additional delay. about 2 seconds of lag is pretty much considered unplayable.

[modeless @ Mar 24th 2009 4:53AM]

More like Bullshit. 1ms latency is a misquote, that's for the video encoding, not end-to-end latency. Can we get some editing in here? Latency is (of course) determined by your Internet connection, so typical latency will be 100-200ms, or worse if you're on wireless. That's going to make most games practically unplayable. Playing on this thing will feel like you're stuck in molasses, and if you think Mirror's Edge gave you motion sickness before, wait until you try it with 200ms of input lag.

Furthermore, ISPs lie about speeds and oversubscribe everyone so most people won't have the bandwidth for HD. Everything will look blurry and have artifacts. And if you thought ISPs were complaining about youtube, wait until they start bellyaching about this service. They'll start throttling it straight away, and I wouldn't even be surprised if some blocked it outright and charged an extra fee to unblock it.

[nikster @ Mar 24th 2009 5:58AM]

Yep - holy crap that is cool! This is a total game changer... I don't think it's feasible over current connections unless you are close to the server but it's a perfect, perfect application for a future 50Mbps+ network. Like we are going to build with the broadband initiative.

I really don't care about TV or video streaming, but game streaming is an entirely different beast. That's just plain awesome.

It could hurt the high end graphics card business, I suppose, but then again those servers will have to do the calculations on something. Which brings me to the only problem that I see with this - how many users can they serve simultaneously? Probably not more than they have graphics cards. Imagine 1000 gfx cards in a room, or 10,000, or if they want to take over PC gaming, 100,000. That poses serious technical problems, and it will be really expensive to boot.

[Tonicboy @ Mar 24th 2009 9:33AM]

Blah blah blah blah. I'm tired of all these know-it-alls proclaiming that "there's NO WAY this would work" and "OBVIOUSLY, latency will be too much". What the hell do you know? No seriously, what the hell do you know? Don't you think that was the first challenge that they realized they needed to overcome? Do you really think these people are so stupid that some snot-nosed kid commenting on a blog could figure out in ten seconds what they couldn't in all the months that they've been working on this?

Look, I'm not saying that this will definitely work either, that would be just as much of an unfounded conclusion. But just remember, there was a time when people said there was no way we could have DVD-quality live streaming video. Clearly, some people won't have the bandwidth for this service, just as some people don't have bandwidth for streaming video. Also, there will clearly be some latency due to the network, but there will be some savings as well/ How many of you have ever played Crysis? Well, I've played it on my desktop gaming rig (last-gen EQ but hardly anything to sneeze at) and let me tell you all about another lag: HARDWARE LAG.

Who cares that it was local and you didn't have to deal with the network if you had to have a $3,000 rig to play it with smooth framerates? If I could trade hardware lag for network lag in Crysis, let me tell you, it would have been a huge improvement. And that's what will ultimately determine the success of this service - the performance doesn't have to beat consoles as long as the convenience and the low cost of entry is enough to make it worth the user's while.

[TT @ Mar 24th 2009 10:09AM]

But will it run Crysis?

Oh, wait...
XD

[OneLove @ Mar 24th 2009 10:36AM]

Ring, Ring, I hear comcast calling.

[Matt @ Mar 24th 2009 10:47AM]

@Sonicboy -- I get where you're coming from, but the 60-200+ms of lag between input and response is probably more significant than you think. Slowdown on a computer is one thing, but the physics of it are just too extreme -- every 200 or so miles is over 2ms of added lag. Eventually this may be possible over a local network (when we're beyond gigabit, and the network stack has changed... lots needs to be improved), sure... but trying to do mainframe/centralized computing over those distances just isn't reasonable in applications where every ms of latency is noticeable.

And this wouldn't eliminate connection latency in online games, either, unless they only worked within their own system. The beauty of the console model is you get $3000 PC performance (or close to it) with a relatively low 3-figure price tag. This just isn't going to manage to achieve the performance that a local machine can.

[Joel @ Mar 24th 2009 11:03AM]

@Matt: No, a console gets you about $500 PC performance nowadays. Even when they 360 first came out, a comparable PC didn't cost anywhere close to $3000 considering the fact that console devs didn't use the system as efficiently as they do now.

[atz @ Mar 24th 2009 11:24AM]

Now when news about internet speeds pops up on engadget people will say "but can it stream crysis"?

[Jag Singh @ Mar 24th 2009 2:35PM]

@Tonicboy -- You're right, i love how everyone magically became a seasoned tech consultant.

This company is spending time and money and probably has figured out a way to deliver a playable game experience.

Debate aside though, if they can successfuly implement this idea, THIS IS THE FUTURE! Look at the cost benefits for customers, No more systems requirements, No more spending thousands on a computer system that will struggle to play the newest and greatest games in the future.

With the netbook craze going full swing these guys definately have a shot.

[junk @ Mar 24th 2009 2:41PM]

This is not just BS, but ABSOLUTE BULLSH*T. Your going to take HD resolution output from Crysis and then encode it in realtime to take under 5 megabits of bandwidth or so while sustaining at least a 30 frame per second frame rate and not introducing a ton of latency? This is not just BS, but it is blatant EXTREME BULLSH*T.

This wont work for HD content and it sure as well wont work for low latency "shooter" games.

[Malkmus @ Mar 24th 2009 3:55PM]

@Junk
Hey, why don't you STFU and wait until it launches to make such accusations. You really think all those publishers would dump money in to something that's simply not going to work? We're not talking about some Chinese knock-off here, as we often see on Engadget. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt since "OnLive's been dropping jaws of the press who've SEEN IT WORKING this week."

[Duke @ Mar 24th 2009 3:58PM]

Amen Tonicboy! This company is designing the device knowing the problems with such a proposal, so who are all of these people sitting there stating what is and is not possible? If you don't think it will work or don't like the idea people, then fine, but that doesn't make it fact. I think they are trying something pretty impressive here and it wouldn't kill you to admit that its pretty darn cool so far.

[stephen @ Mar 24th 2009 11:19PM]

I have had this idea in my head since the start of laptops (for a really fucking long time), just glad that I can finally dump my tv 360, wii, cable service and replace it with my $200 netbbok. Now all we need are laptops that have fold into something the size of an ipod touch (the thing is fucking tiny) oled screen and squishy super thin keyboard

[Hey D3vi0u$T0ny @ Mar 25th 2009 8:21PM]

@ Junk

You must be a real fucktard cause you obvoiusly didnt listen to what the FUCKING guy was FUCKING talkin about in the FUCKING video. Oooh srry about that i guess you don't have a fast enough internet connection to watch the FUCKING video eh?

Srry everyone who knows what they're talking about but his guy is obviously an idiot and he doesn't deserve to use technology.

These people had 7 FUCKING years to think about all these problems. They created their own compression technology to make sure the game gets to you at 60FPS and 1ms latency. For all you assholes worrying about lag and shit, stop being bums and get a better connection.

[Alan Strangis @ Mar 27th 2009 4:44PM]

@ Tonicboy: your rant portrays you as much of a 'know it all' as those you accuse. Why does it have to be an either/or situation anyways? FFS.

The reason I don' think it's going to work the way Perlman et al suggest is it's a maximum of 720p resolution in a best case scenario.

Most "hardcore" gamers aren't going to sacrifice uncompressed 1920 x 1200 graphics - which you can get out of a E6300 Core2Duo and Nvidia 7950 playing L4D, or 360/PS3 for a bandwidth intense cloud console. Personally, I would never buy a single player game that I couldn't play properly because my girlfriend is streaming some romantic comedy on Netflix. That's just plain stupid.

That doesn't mean OnLive won't have a good shot, as it brings more titles to the Mac, and to netbooks which can handle the video stream. All this is good for OnLive, especially since the gaming market is still growing, or...

"Don’t get me wrong, as OnLive looks like it could be a decent supplement for the ‘hardcore’ gamer, and may also be an entry point for people looking for something more than a Wii with a lower barrier to entry than a PS3, Xbox 360 or gaming rig. With the video game industry continuing to experience solid growth every year, there’s more than enough room for OnLive, without the ‘hardware is dead’ hyperbole." - http://www.rgbfilter.com/?p=409

Seriously, it would certainly be awesome on a netbook, but not as a primary gaming solution, if you actually DO care about the quality of your Crysis experience beyond the meme it's become.

[chuuchdizzle @ Mar 24th 2009 2:57AM]

OMG! I had an idea about something like this a while back(never really thought too much into it, but thought it'd be cool)

I swear I shat a lung just now. this is my holy grail of gaming, as long as it's implemented as well as they say it is. god sometimes I really love the cloud.

[THJ @ Mar 24th 2009 5:15PM]

Mmmm... unfiltered Lucky Strikes and a Grande Meal. The best lung-shitting money can buy.

[WEGGLES @ Mar 24th 2009 2:59AM]

Only problem that many ISPs don't offer unlimited usage per month. Mine, for example, is $1.50/GB if you go over 60GB uploaded/downloaded per month. I'd much rather buy physical games.

[Ogden2k @ Mar 24th 2009 11:38AM]

Same here. I have no interest in this. Not everyone lives in a big city with plenty of broadband access.

[Evi1d33d @ Mar 24th 2009 1:22PM]

I got campus connection that streams 3MB/s so this shouldn't be a problem :P

[CzAr @ Mar 25th 2009 12:23PM]

I'm stuck at 100gb/month.

I'll stick to my PC and Consoles.

They tried something like this before, but it was for Sega Genesis. Every month you would have unlimited access to 30 or so games, and it would change every month. It was offered through our local ISP.

[TareX @ Mar 24th 2009 2:59AM]

This is the freakin future.

Get a cheapass netbook and play Crysis maxed out anytime anywhere.

[Buis @ Mar 24th 2009 4:25AM]

It most definately is the future. Stop worrying about hardware and start loving what you can do with it.
Now if they also offer Photoshop, Logic, et.al. I'm in.

[el Capitan @ Mar 24th 2009 9:07AM]

Finally no more of these "but will it play crysis?" comments. Anything will now be able to play it now!

[phling @ Mar 24th 2009 12:46PM]

exactly. even if this gaming thing doesn't succeed, it's still a major indicator of what to expect in the coming years in terms of how we use computer brains.

[Joshua Walters @ Mar 24th 2009 10:46PM]

@Buis

They actually have an online version of Photoshop. Its not great, but its also pretty usable. And free. I use it on my Wind all the time.

[Wiigee @ Mar 24th 2009 2:59AM]

Wow. im very interested.

[jpxdude @ Mar 24th 2009 2:59AM]

Remember that Microsoft rep last year, who said we would all be playing games via digital distrubution through only one box under the TV in the next 5 years? Suddenly he doesn't seem so mad after all....

[Sircoelho @ Mar 25th 2009 9:59AM]

Bill Gates pridicted this 15 years ago in The Road Ahead, an entire chapter dedicated to explain how cloud computing will become the imminent future.

[Darayz @ Mar 24th 2009 3:00AM]

If the future is streamed games, what will happen to Gamestop? You can't trade-in bandwidth ... or can you ... No, I'm pretty sure you can't.

[kojo87 @ Mar 24th 2009 3:49AM]

can you preorder bandwith is the real question. and what bonus content do i receive for doing so?

[AL @ Mar 24th 2009 7:05AM]

Enron Broadband tried - and look where they are now.

[Flit @ Mar 24th 2009 8:58AM]

"Enron Broadband tried - and look where they are now."

No, enron bandwith Didn't try, they created the idea so that they could inflate their books even further. After 2 years of talking about how they were going to swap bandwith and had nothing to show for it, people called thier bluff, and the rest of the company was coming down around their ears anyway.

As for the story, I'll believe it when I see it, the idea is pretty good though, especially if fiber/cable speeds keep increasing, the quality only has one direction to go.

[Malicaide @ Mar 24th 2009 1:01PM]

to hell with gamestop, cheating over priced for used games. how the hell they buy a 2 week old game for 15$ then resell it for 55$ *^& them all....

[loonix @ Mar 24th 2009 3:02AM]

Will the be the end of "System Requirements?"

[kojo87 @ Mar 24th 2009 3:45AM]

thats what im wondering. will there even be a reason for ATi and nVidia to keep making new GPUs? (for home PCs anyway) why should i ever buy computer hardware ever again? will we ever need computers faster than what have now? what about gaming rig bragging rights? why did i just buy an ATi HD4870 and 26" monitor? what will happen to Steam?

maybe its just because its 3am and i worked 10 hours today but this is making my head explode. i dont know if i want this...

[Cunthor @ Mar 24th 2009 4:04AM]

No.

*Requires Broadband Connection **


**50Mbps or higher

[Jamesology @ Mar 24th 2009 4:50AM]

Yeah... That's the main reason why I still play on Consoles. Wanna play a 49.99 game? Sure! Just make sure you have a $800 videocard.

[Ridgecity @ Mar 24th 2009 5:26AM]

will it end console wars? probably people will still fight about console colors:

"I have a white one lozerz!!"
"L.E. Banana Yellow RULEZZ!!"

[Zeus.:God @ Mar 24th 2009 8:42AM]

$800 dollar video card? WTF are you talking about? If you're spending 800 bones for a video card, you're looking in the wrong place or you're getting some super extreme special edition water cooled, solid gold card.

[Kenzya @ Mar 24th 2009 7:34PM]

@Kojo87

If I'm reading this news post right then yes, all of that will still be needed. While the end user may not need a high end graphics card to receive video, the provider will still need hardware to handle the game. I mean, I guess in part, you're right. If this technology pans out then the user won't need to invest money every 3 years to enjoy impressive graphics and smooth framerates.

Either way, I wouldn't expect this to start affecting services such as Steam until many, many years in to the future.

[El Taco @ Mar 24th 2009 11:50PM]

@jamesology

Actually it's more like a $200-300 video card,

-as opposed to a $200-600 game console, plus the controllers, etc.

[Jakjak9210 @ Mar 25th 2009 12:36AM]

I really hope so, imagine playing crysis on a regular box standard macbook, hell, any laptop! a netbook even!
although, im not really sure that you would WANT to play on a netbook :p

I really think this is the future, but it will be a good 2-4 years before the internet speeds increase to this level for lots of people.