Support NeoGAF

[Grayman]

The author updated the article with some information on the distance and lag issues, actually. http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=859&type=expert&pid=6 Go read it if you haven't. The way it works in beta is that each beta account is tied to a specific server, while with the retail version you will be able to switch servers. He was indeed connecting to the West Coast server from the East. This means that the retail OnLive will probably not have as much lag as he experienced.

He also says this about the "1000 miles" thing:



Overall he thinks that the lag and latency issues were much worse because of the distance issue than they would be otherwise, but the image quality issues he thinks were unrelated and it really does look that bad. He offered to try it out on the East server if they'd let him, though, to see what the difference would be like.

He is definitely right about the distance not being the be all end all. When I was on one ISP in Vancouver I had a 100ms ping to Quakelive Seattle and 60-70 to Quakelive San Fransisco. On a new ISP now both are sub 40.

That is only 200km & 1200km but the older isp shows that routing can matter a lot more than distance.

 

[Darklord]

It's interesting technology but it's still too shitty. I don't want to have to reply on my net keeping a high speed just to play a single player game. I don't want lag in a game that I'm not playing with 50 other people. I don't want gigs of my bandwidth eaten up a month. I don't want ugly graphics on games that should look amazing. It would also be hard work getting this beyond America, you can't play off a US server with 600 ping.

It's just too much baggage for something that's meant to be simple and easy. Give it 5-10 more years.

 

[Milk Lizard]

.

Looks like the worst youtube quality.

 

[sinxtanx]

Looks like the worst youtube quality.

Check the video in the Review, holy mother of Bob does it look bad

 

[speculawyer]

Disaster, IHMO. OK for slow niche games. Hardcore wont like it. Casuals wont pay.

Will be obsolete soon due improving gfx cards and onlive cant scale up since no bandwidth improvements on horizon.

 

[Luckyman]

lol

Why are people so afraid of this? 5mbps 720p modified H.264 should look fine. People posting sub 100kb jpeg images = lol.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

lol

Why are people so afraid of this? 5mbps 720p modified H.264 should look fine. People posting sub 100kb jpeg images = lol.

And how do they encode it in H.264 in real time and pass it on to the client without any recognizable lag?

 

[erick]

GPU cloud computing maybe? It does have the raw horsepower to pull it off.

 

[Koren]

lol

Why are people so afraid of this? 5mbps 720p modified H.264 should look fine. People posting sub 100kb jpeg images = lol.

The problem is that compression algorithm like h.264 usually need several frames in advance for optimization. It also require a quite high computational power. They won't get anything close to h.264 in realtime and near lag-free (2-3 frames in buffer max) encoding.

GPU cloud computing maybe? It does have the raw horsepower to pull it off.

I don't think it'll work well with only a couple of frames in buffer. And besides that, do you expect them tu use GPU cloud computing when they can't max out the graphic options at 720p ?

 

[erick]

I'm sure they could, but what if that there are bandwidth/quality considerations? Compression does tend to lose a lot of detail anyway, so why not not settle for medium settings, because high settings use a disproportionate amount of resources to render what will end up at the client side as a reduced quality picture anyway?

Also, medium details and blander textures means there is not so much visual information flying around, probably helps save on bandwidth overhead as well, if they use some tile-based rendering system that updates only those tiles in the game for which information changes.

 

[M3d10n]

My father bought a "new" PC for $250 bucks (because the old PIV-era Celeron PC finally gave in). It had the cheapest parts they could find thrown in, and the processor is a mother 'effing Athlon X2 4000. The integrated GPU is a Geforce 6100 which chokes when running trying to run The Sims 3 with everything on low. This is the kind of computer that would be serviced by OnLive.

However, I threw a HD 4670 in it and it can now run Street Fighter IV, Mirrors Edge and TF2 at borderline very high settings and at good framerates. And my sisters can play The Sims 3 on it with everything maxed out. All that only cost me $60. Can OnLive be cheaper than that?

I can see the point for laptops and netbooks, where replacing the GPU is not possible, but then the experience gets worse if you're on wireless.

 

[NIGHT-]

yea I will stick with my consoles

 

[poppabk]

I don't even know why we are comparing PC prices when the market of people who want to play PC games and are OK playing them at sub console quality is going to be vanishingly small. Even at $15 a month (good luck with that), after about 18 months you would have been better off getting a PS3. After 5 years, even if you bought your PS3 at $599 you are worse off by $300 with OnLive - and you had inferior quality, internet reliant, no ownership gaming for that extra money.
I do have to say that I am surprised they got it working at all though - so they do have some impressive technology, I just don't see the market.

 

[I NEED SCISSORS]

Computer parts have nosedived in price so the service is irrelevant. I'm basically echoing what's been said already. I wonder how much a subscription costs.. I would probably shed a tear for those poor souls who are suckered into this.

 

[jaypah]

My father bought a "new" PC for $250 bucks (because the old PIV-era Celeron PC finally gave in). It had the cheapest parts they could find thrown in, and the processor is a mother 'effing Athlon X2 4000. The integrated GPU is a Geforce 6100 which chokes when running trying to run The Sims 3 with everything on low. This is the kind of computer that would be serviced by OnLive.

However, I threw a HD 4670 in it and it can now run Street Fighter IV, Mirrors Edge and TF2 at borderline very high settings and at good framerates. And my sisters can play The Sims 3 on it with everything maxed out. All that only cost me $60. Can OnLive be cheaper than that?

I can see the point for laptops and netbooks, where replacing the GPU is not possible, but then the experience gets worse if you're on wireless.

fuck, is that the store price on that card? i need to jump in at some point soon.

 

[aaaaaaaaaaaa7654]

I see no need for consoles once this tech has been improved

 

[Vorador]

Well, i expected this outcome. Even if the server is just 50 meters from your home (and the lag is bearable) you would still have to deal with shitty IQ. And the Wi-Fi capability is still a big maybe since it's right now forbidden.

 

[SapientWolf]

I think these guys are overshooting the market. They should be aiming for 1024x600 over wireless. That would open up the platform to netbooks and smartphones. They can move to the home market when the high speed internet infrastructure improves.

 

[clashfan]

Should have made this a service for ondemand video or applications, not games.

 

[Koren]

And the Wi-Fi capability is still a big maybe since it's right now forbidden.

Their box may not support WiFi yet, but you can use a WiFi bridge. They have absolutely NO way to know whether the packets go wired or wireless.

 

[-PXG-]

lol

Why are people so afraid of this? 5mbps 720p modified H.264 should look fine. People posting sub 100kb jpeg images = lol.

This too. Again, judging the visual from still images is pointless. Now, if it still looks this bad in motion, then I think we can all agree that is sucks.

I think latency and the fact that you don't actually own any content are much bigger issues...

 

[Q8D3vil]

will wait for final onlive review

but , it look better than expected

 

[Kazuma Kiryu]

ok, after seeing those videos....onlive is gonna bomb.
it's so choppy it's not even funny

 

[aaaaaaaaaaaa7654]

Should have made this a service for ondemand video or applications, not games.

They've said that the ultimate test for this tech would be delivering games, they can easily do video or apps.

 

[cakefoo]

ok, after seeing those videos....onlive is gonna bomb.
it's so choppy it's not even funny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gducgTcJMMU#t=3m10s

 

[poppabk]

This too. Again, judging the visual from still images is pointless. Now, if it still looks this bad in motion, then I think we can all agree that is sucks.

I think latency and the fact that you don't actually own any content are much bigger issues...

There are videos in the original linked article, admittedly with youtube HD compression added, but the low quality of the encode relative to the real game is readily apparent in those comparisons.