OnLive - Not so Lively?

[JD_2020]

Okay,

So I watched the OnLive coverage at GDC, and have been doing some reading. Before you read my little critique of their service, please watch their presentation:

http://gdc.gamespot.com/video/6206677/

Now if it doesn't make sense to you how that works, don't worry - I was the same way. And I still am a little confused to be honest... They were being very ambiguous with precisely just how the service works, and it really does look awfully gimmicky to me. So here is me using all I know about games, technology, and the Internet trying to interpret what OnLive is.

It sounds to me like OnLive is going to be no better than those little On-Demand game "consoles" in some hotels where it's just a controller hooked up to something behind the TV, and it streams little low-tech, low-end games through the network to the TV. Very little, if any, processing will happen on that OnLive micro-console. Instead, they will try to crunch all the game data on remote server farms, and stream the video output to their micro-console device across the network.

So it would appear as though OnLive is attempting to livestream a tremendous amount of video data for a game in realtime, across vast networking distances. Not likely going to go over so well... You think your games can be laggy now huh? Boy you just wait...

They were very vague on compatibility - but I would bet a kidney that there will be no cross-platform compatibility. So if you are playing Triple Play 2009 on OnLive (if a game of that caliber is even offered), you will only be able to play with other OnLive subscribers, not with the Xbox 360.

So what's wrong with that? Nothing, really. Oh wait - they are trying to break into a market that even Apple would have a hard time doing, and I just can't help but think they have a very steep hill to climb... And that hill is covered with landmines... And recession.

What's wrong with OnLive is they are betting that the Internet is going to be able to support this model, which it simply will not. Think about Verizon FIOS; arguably the fastest consumer network provider you can find. You get backbone fiber optic speed for downloading, and a pretty significant amount of upstream bandwidth as well. However, what about the "other guy" you are playing against? The rate at which a broadband service like FIOS is being adopted is far too slow. This is almost the equivalent of retrofitting every gas station in the country with hydrogen fuel stations to make alternative or hydrogen fuel cars a reality - it is going to take a long loooong time. OnLive is about 10 years ahead of itself.

One day, when we all have Gigabit networks, this kind of service may work. But until then, the "games" you'll be playing via OnLive are things like Scrabble, Uno, iShoot, etc. You won't be playing your Medal of Honor's or Resident Evil's anytime soon.

Now don't get me wrong - it's not that OnLive as a company will fail. It is good to think 10 years out in advance. What do they gain by launching now then? Well they'll get to iron out all their distribution problems they'll run into, they get to start creating an install base of casual gamers, and won't really have that big of a target on their backs for some time to come. When the time arrives where true AAA game video data can be streamed across a network that quickly, they will have their day.

However, if you are getting overly-excited about this new service, take a breather and relax. A hardcore gamer isn't going to be using OnLive for a while. My kids may be using it, but not me.

So why then am I not excited for OnLive? Because their presentation at GDC seemed too much like they were over-selling their product. They were making claims about AAA games being hosted concurrently when they release to retailers... That's 10 years away remember. That's not "Winter of 2009" when the service launches. When the service launches, you'll see the simple casual games as I described above. I think that it's good to share your ambitions with an audience of game developers and gamers, but frame it in the right context. Make it clear that ultimately you may be offering that kind of streaming game service, but it won't come before the networking infrastructure is there, and the development community designs their games around that technology.

Regards,
-JD

[flyersfan20]

Thanks for the explanation. After watching the video I found myself confused about how exactly OnLive worked. I always find myself skeptical about these types of "revolutionary" services.

[Freakboy]

I think that the core idea is great, but in the day and age we are in currently, no way in hell it will work. Plane and simple. Also I believe that the technology to run a service like this is not available yet either. My 2 cents.

[JD_2020]

Personally, I'm not sure why they didn't flagship this technology with something more realistic in the present-day, like.... Streaming 720p video service? They could stream every free video content they could find on YouTube, Vimeo, Hulu, etc straight to TV's via their micro-console - AND - they could have paid subscription models where you get premium TV and DVD content (a la Netflix) streamed straight to your TV as well.

This way, they get their order processing and content distribution kinks worked out early with their streaming video service, and could then segue into the video game market when it was more suitable for the mass market.

That's just the way I'd have run the company if it were me... Then again, none of my statups seem to go anywhere so maybe I'm just blowing smoke .

[Gosu71]

I'll keep an eye on what happens when OnLive launches, but I definitely won't be trading my consoles in for it.

I prefer to actually own the 'physical' game (i.e. the blu-ray disc) than log onto a system where my games magically appear. By that I mean if I don't fancy paying my monthly subscription to it, then I have no games to play. Did they think of this one?

[Natedawg]

I'll keep an eye on what happens when OnLive launches, but I definitely won't be trading my consoles in for it.

I prefer to actually own the 'physical' game (i.e. the blu-ray disc) than log onto a system where my games magically appear. By that I mean if I don't fancy paying my monthly subscription to it, then I have no games to play. Did they think of this one?

Much agree, i use to download pc games form Ea, then i got a new pc and tried to load them on there it said that the games where not transferable, so my questions is if the hardive fails whats to back it up?

[MaHiRzDaMaN]

Now we just wait until the public beta and see what the testers have to say.

[Natedawg]

I cant wait

[MaHiRzDaMaN]

Does PC and Mac playing together count as cross platform? Because it can do that.
And it also has regional servers to reduce lag.
The games it will have won't be brand new, and will already be available to other consoles, and PC, but I don't think they'll be crap games like scrabble.

[Gosu71]

I've seen that to be a beta tester is limited to USA users only, which is a pity as I wouldn't have minded testing it out. After all, it will be a global gaming system so i'd like to see how good the online multiplayer is compared to say the p2p of CoD.