OnLive willl give you a free console if you buy a game(venturebeat.com)
venturebeat.com
OnLive willl give you a free console if you buy a game
http://venturebeat.com/2011/02/25/onlive-willl-give-you-a-free-console-if-you-buy-a-game/
14 comments
OnLive was founded by Steve Perlman - one of the 3 co-founders of WebTV. Steve is the consummate Silicon Valley serial entrepreneur - brilliant geek, business guy, product visionary, cheerleader -- all rolled into one with a nice-guy personality to boot.
OnLive does some spectacularly clever things to perform so well; and it will continue to deliver better and better experiences without you needing to upgrade your video card or computer.
I can't say more (disclosure: I'm under NDA), but OnLive is <i>definitely</i> the Real Deal.
OnLive does some spectacularly clever things to perform so well; and it will continue to deliver better and better experiences without you needing to upgrade your video card or computer.
I can't say more (disclosure: I'm under NDA), but OnLive is <i>definitely</i> the Real Deal.
I think you're exactly right. I had the same reaction the first time I read about them, then I saw their product again recently and there was no doubt anymore that this is going to be the future of gaming.
True, they may not be there yet, but they most likely will.
True, they may not be there yet, but they most likely will.
This reminds me of the transition to SaaS. (Gaas??)
Soon game devs can develop their games for idealized virtual environments which is much easier than developing for a video game console (or more than one console). If a dev needs features that a console doesn't provide, they can just 'host' it on a different data center.
The slow release cycle of consoles that Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony are basing their businesses on is about to be obsoleted and replaced with frequent software updates.
From here, it's only a small step to conceiving a world in which it is incredibly easy to build multiplayer games, too. If the whole simulation lives on the server and nowhere else, then you don't need any network code.
The OnLive team must be incredibly excited!
Soon game devs can develop their games for idealized virtual environments which is much easier than developing for a video game console (or more than one console). If a dev needs features that a console doesn't provide, they can just 'host' it on a different data center.
The slow release cycle of consoles that Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony are basing their businesses on is about to be obsoleted and replaced with frequent software updates.
From here, it's only a small step to conceiving a world in which it is incredibly easy to build multiplayer games, too. If the whole simulation lives on the server and nowhere else, then you don't need any network code.
The OnLive team must be incredibly excited!
As a counter-point:
Soon game devs can develop their games for idealized hardware environments which is much easier than developing for the myriad of centralized mainframes. If a dev needs features that a mainframe couldn't provide, they can build the hardware that's needed.
The high cost of servers and bandwidth that Onlive are basing their businesses on is about to be obsoleted and replaced with dedicated rendering hardware for the consumer.
From here, it's only a small step to conceiving a world in which it is incredibly easy to build graphically intensive games, too. If the whole simulation lives on the one piece of hardware and nowhere else, then you don't need any network code or fancy servers or massive bandwidth.
I'm excited for the future console wars!
Soon game devs can develop their games for idealized hardware environments which is much easier than developing for the myriad of centralized mainframes. If a dev needs features that a mainframe couldn't provide, they can build the hardware that's needed.
The high cost of servers and bandwidth that Onlive are basing their businesses on is about to be obsoleted and replaced with dedicated rendering hardware for the consumer.
From here, it's only a small step to conceiving a world in which it is incredibly easy to build graphically intensive games, too. If the whole simulation lives on the one piece of hardware and nowhere else, then you don't need any network code or fancy servers or massive bandwidth.
I'm excited for the future console wars!
[deleted]
I tried out OnLive over the Christmas break and it was great. Played Mafia 2 on a 4 year old MacBook and it ran perfectly.
But I can't use the service because over 2 days I had used 40GB of my 65GB bandwidth (thanks Rogers). Although it's an extreme example, 3GB/hr is still too much for my capped internet service.
But I can't use the service because over 2 days I had used 40GB of my 65GB bandwidth (thanks Rogers). Although it's an extreme example, 3GB/hr is still too much for my capped internet service.
Is my understanding of this correct - that they're maintaining state and performing rendering on the server for every connection to the service, and then sending each frame over the network?
I am so very confused as to how this is scaling. Isn't the rule of thumb for scalability and performance to move client state and UI processing onto the client? Are they going to run an XBox VM for every simultaneously connected customer? How does it perform for games that require low controller lag, like FPS - or Megaman for that matter.
I am so very confused as to how this is scaling. Isn't the rule of thumb for scalability and performance to move client state and UI processing onto the client? Are they going to run an XBox VM for every simultaneously connected customer? How does it perform for games that require low controller lag, like FPS - or Megaman for that matter.
Yes, it's basically VNC applied to games. I would guess that each simultaneous user has a dedicated PC on the server side.
Supposedly, they can run four or so off of the same PC for lower-end games.
That sounds very very expensive.
It's virtualized, and considering not everyone plays games at the same time, you would prob get a lot more than 4 players per "pc"
True, but the hardware still needs to scale linearly with the number of concurrent connections, and it leaves them pretty susceptible to high traffic related problems, like at peak times when games are first released. What if someone decides to launch a DDoS? Virtualization also limits the type of games they can run - you can't run a dozen PS3 games without a dozen PS3s.
On top of that, they shoulder the cost of upgrading the hardware, along with the risk - another Dreamcast (high initial sales followed by a severe dropoff) would be disastrous. I'm not sure how they can pass those costs on to their customers at a price point that's attractive to anyone who doesn't play lots of games per month (also making it possibly a net loss), or that's competitive with the more scalable, more performant, and lower risk model of running the games on the client, whether it's a console or a PC.
On top of that, they shoulder the cost of upgrading the hardware, along with the risk - another Dreamcast (high initial sales followed by a severe dropoff) would be disastrous. I'm not sure how they can pass those costs on to their customers at a price point that's attractive to anyone who doesn't play lots of games per month (also making it possibly a net loss), or that's competitive with the more scalable, more performant, and lower risk model of running the games on the client, whether it's a console or a PC.
AFAIcantell they only do PC games (or ports), so they don't have that problem. They probably won't deal in specialty hardware, that would be a nightmare. Just standard, out of the box hardware that can contribute to their overall processing power even 5-10 years later.
That would definitely mitigate some of the risk, but I'd imagine they'd have to steer clear of new games that push hardware too much - even if every system running the same game runs it from shared memory, it's still optimistically one processor per connection. They're also likely to run into the same problems that Netflix is having with ISPs, but even harder, without caching as an option. It's like they tried to conjure up the least scalable application imaginable... well, props to them if they pull it off.
Seems like they will need high-end video cards for new games too. Doesn't seem like it could scale much that way.
>I am so very confused as to how this is scaling. Isn't the rule of thumb for scalability and performance to move client state and UI processing onto the client?
Then, for say, casual gamers, you have excess client capacity (capital) sitting idle more than 95% of the time.
Then, for say, casual gamers, you have excess client capacity (capital) sitting idle more than 95% of the time.
That's true, and that investment's on the customers, so idle clients aren't really a problem, unless you sell the hardware too far below cost, and they don't buy enough media. If you're Steam, this doesn't even cross your mind. When the required hardware's expensive, centralizing is a gamble - you want to run close to 100% capacity, but you don't ever want to go above it.
[deleted]
The big question is how good are broadband connections in the US? I can see this working in Korea, Japan, or HK really well; but I have my doubts given the wide range of internet access quality here in the US.
Given the complaints about always on Internet DRM schemes, there's bound to be some problems I don't want to deal with for Onlive.
Given the complaints about always on Internet DRM schemes, there's bound to be some problems I don't want to deal with for Onlive.
I don't think it has to work super well right now, the benefits are so big that we'll find a way to make this work.
The first SaaS applications were horrible to use and it has taken 10 years until webapps have arrived at desktop performance (as far as responsiveness goes).
The first SaaS applications were horrible to use and it has taken 10 years until webapps have arrived at desktop performance (as far as responsiveness goes).
They also gave out a free console to anyone that pre-ordered one with intent to pay when they came out, and that came with a free game as well.
If there was ever a business that got attracting customers and rewarding early adopters, it's OnLive.
If there was ever a business that got attracting customers and rewarding early adopters, it's OnLive.
Wait...this sounded fantastic, but this isn't like a normal games console or even Steam. If OnLive folds or stops supporting older games, your console is worthless, right?
Well, their UX is bad. Initially when you don't have an account and you click anywhere on the big homepage ad, it takes you to info about the offer but no where to click "Buy". So then it leads to creating an account, and after that when you click on the homepage ad it just takes you back to your account page.
Edit: This might have been an instant buy for me. Except I can't figure out how to pre-order their damn game, so now I've lost interest. There's no way to even search for games. Its like no one actually sat down with a credit card and walked through the "We Like Money" part of this whole operation.
Edit: This might have been an instant buy for me. Except I can't figure out how to pre-order their damn game, so now I've lost interest. There's no way to even search for games. Its like no one actually sat down with a credit card and walked through the "We Like Money" part of this whole operation.
You're supposed to download the desktop app and buy it through there, I think.
Helpful to know, thanks. But how would anyone ever discover that fact on their own?
Fully agree. There's no clear CTA connected to the offer, so the user's only option is to fill out the form and hope it's got something to do with it.
I followed the same hopeless loop you did, and lost interest as well.
It may be possible to pre-order the game through the .exe they want you to install, but I've only got a Mac and a Linux box at home, and a Mac at work. It's not really worth my time to hunt down a PC just to participate in this offer.
As a UX professional, things like this make me die a little inside.
I followed the same hopeless loop you did, and lost interest as well.
It may be possible to pre-order the game through the .exe they want you to install, but I've only got a Mac and a Linux box at home, and a Mac at work. It's not really worth my time to hunt down a PC just to participate in this offer.
As a UX professional, things like this make me die a little inside.
There is a Mac client. The download starts after you register.
[deleted]
I heard about OnLive two years ago when they presented at E3. Glad to see their product is actually out and they're pushing hard to get it adapted. I'm interested to take up this offer just to test out the response time.
I wonder how long it will take before someone hacks it to stream hulu and netflix. It should be able to if it streams video games in 720p;
What they really need is some sort of Flash plugin version. I have a CR-48 that would be perfect for this.
I had this idea years ago, but its implementation that matters for that I wish it all the best! (and its quick expansion into England)
But just today I recognized it as a profound disruption: a service that isn't very good, with a cheaper business model, that targets non-consumption.
When the network does become good enough - and it's only getting faster - these guys will have encountered and solved all the myriad other technical problems (like iron man and altitude freeze). And they will also have solved all the problems with the business model (suppliers, charging, customer issues). It will be hard to catch them.
And... turns out people are saying the latency isn't actually as off-putting as you'd think, for FPS etc. I've heard a bigger problem is with mouse-pointers - the latency between the mouse moving and the pointer moving is apparently much more perceptible.
So, I say congratulations to these guys. Make a crap product for cheap; let everyone laugh at you; make it better. They are the visionary entrepreneurs, who actually change everything. No derision means no revolution.