DescentBB

It seems that we have a new contender on the market. It's called \"OnLive\". No, it's not another evile MS scheme, although, I'm sure they'll try to buy these guys out. It's basically like playing on Steam only without downloading anything.

Check it out HERE on AtomicPC!

Incidentally, this is an Aussie site.

Here is how it works.

There have long been predictions that gaming will move online to take advantage of the almost limitless computing power of cloud servers offering processing as a service. This would affect the hardware industry because games have been a major driver in pushing up the power of consumer PCs.

Are they serious?

That's nuts!

Issac, the PS3 isn't too far from this now.

So my \"float point\" data is rendered on the server NOT my netbook's video card?

hmm.. from what I gather, it seems the graphics ONLY. There wouldn't be any physics, or actual 3D rendering done. Basic data would be sent (I think) like a 2D game, while their servers handle the calculation load that current vid cards are dealing with.

again, that's a guess as I haven't read through their whole site yet.

Here are the companies that have signed up with these guys.

This could be very interesting.

I'm confused by it all. But it sounds interesting.
I'm going to bed.

Isaac wrote:I'm confused by it all. But it sounds interesting.
I'm going to bed.

It still has to overcome consoles first before it really becomes significant... it's basically competing against PCs on cost, and those sorts of people are already quite likely to opt for a 360 or PS3 (which don't have quite such heavy constraints on latency or high bandwidth use).

Could happen eventually, of course, but I'd say you'd be looking at 5+ years before it gains appreciable market share. Then there's the spectre of Microsoft to deal with, since they can technically already do this sort of thing just by running virtualised remote desktops on Windows Azure. The quality of service wouldn't be overly impressive, but by the time it counts...

With all the big players in place, (EDO, Ubisoft, Epic, Atari, and EA) I think they will have good support. They will need to cough up enough dough to synch some exclusive DLC ...like MS did with MW2 (Modern Warefare 2) In that case, we're talking something like $10 mil iirc.

When all you need is a small IR receiver/modem for your controller, it shouldn't cost all that much. It should also cut down on hackers. Hacking on consoles is much MUCH worse than on PC's. Modded controllers is the newest thing. So if they can slap that down, you'll grab a nice market share with relative ease.
I am interested to see how the pricing spreads out. with Zero lag and HD visuals, I think they will do well. A \"Winter 09\" release makes me think they're shooting to grab some Holiday shoppers.

the issues people have with D2D and steam would be the same ones for onlive.

it seems that it's ALL server side.

**EDIT**

ok, it takes in the controller input, sends it to their server. They're servers do everything and sends it back in a video feed. That's why it's so fast.

Consoles are still far more expensive. You have to buy a TV.

The whole concept is impractical from the standpoint of input lag, if not borderline impossible beyond a certain range. A decent desktop computer can sometimes brush up close to having excessive input lag, multiply that by internet lag and it only gets worse. And if they say \"the internet will get faster it won't be a problem\" they are forgetting that even at the speed of light in a straight line they would still be suffering better than 30 MS worth of network lag for a round trip within the US.

Not to mention it would use up my monthly bandwidth cap far too quickly.

I agree with Krom and fliptw regarding Internet speed constraints and input lag. Those are huge obstacles and still not able to be completely overcome. I would much rather get a PS3 or build a new PC to take advantage of new games, rather than trust a cloud server and a lightning fast Internet line. Having all the calculation for a [single player] game done locally is much more reliable.

You gotta admit, tho, that it's an interesting concept.

The economical problem that I see is that you're going to have to have an awesome connect. I bet that you'd save enough to build yourself a nice gaming machine in two year's worth of savings from using DSL instead of cable/fios high speed internet. (I figure $30/mo * 24mo = $720... enough for a decent machine)