OnLive's CEO answers a few questions

  • By SarjuS, GameSpot
  • Posted Mar 31, 2009 10:33 am PT

OnLive was the hot topic for GDC. The company stirred more than a few pots with claims of HDTV quality gaming on a console that could hide under a DVD. We had the chance to sit down with OnLive's CEO Steve Perlman to get a few more answers about how the service might play out and how it behaves...

OnLive was the hot topic for GDC. The company stirred more than a few pots with claims of HDTV quality gaming on a console that could hide under a DVD. We had the chance to sit down with OnLive's CEO Steve Perlman to get a few more answers about how the service might play out and how it behaves under different sets of conditions. His answers shed more light on how the system will work. Check out the video to see what Perlman has to say about bandwidth concerns, energy usage, the achievements system, spectating, and more.

345 Comments

  • samissleman17

    Posted Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm PT

    Lets assume it works. I have questions. 1. can i use xbox 360 controller? their controller is like crap. 2. The monthly fee has to be crazy high, or maybe you pay for each game you want to access?? that makes more sense to me. 3. wont sony, nintendo, and microsoft be really angry? they'd either lose a lot of money, or never allow exclusives onto onlive. 4. console costs and everything... 5. how easily is this hackable? 6. is it really coming winter 09???? that sounds crazy. I really want it but my connections not good enough and ive already spent too much on xbox. I think they'll find some way to rip us off... all these little fees

  • Mr_Versipellis

    Posted Apr 30, 2009 12:09 pm PT

    @MihaiHornet
    This + bandwidth are my problems. Bang on.

  • MihaiHornet

    Posted Apr 28, 2009 12:00 pm PT

    Technology hype and Perlman's BS aside it's a simple choice to make.

    Diversity and choice (PC (Intel, AMD, nVidia, ATI, Creative, ASUS, etc, etc, etc), XBOX, PS).
    Competition between major hardware producers.
    Technology evolution driving forward the gaming industry.
    Ownership of the machine (whatever from the above).
    Ownership of the copy of the game (unless limited securom activations or steam )
    Community developed game content (thanks guys ).
    Gamers have the power to influence the industry.
    Gamers win.

    Or

    Uniformity of the OnLive flimsy console with maximum resolution limited to HD (is this a joke?).
    Pay for OnLive service (play or not play).
    Games that you pay for but you do not own.
    Hooked with one provider.
    Little to none interest to develop new 3D gaming technology.
    Gamers are subscribers and milking cows for greedy corporations.
    Gamers loose.

    Is this the future of gaming?

    BTW, who owns a web TV? Anyone? Huh? Cause this is another bright invention of Mr. Perlman. And he made good money selling the technology to Microsoft. I suspect he expects to find another sucker for OnLive before it goes live (or drops dead).

  • shani_boy101

    Posted Apr 25, 2009 9:32 pm PT

    "Special Technology"???
    John Perlman how about you copyright, then release the algorithms you use for this hyper-compression technology to the public if you're so confident about it. Then we can finally know whether this is real or just a massive scam, cos i don't trust you.

  • KhanhAgE

    Posted Apr 22, 2009 8:55 pm PT

    Because it's a video feed of what your playing, exactly how good will it look? Since it will be compressed video data, it will never look as good as a direct feed from the source. Take Crysis as an example. A 720p video of the game in motion is never going to look as good as seeing the game in action being rendered directly from the GPU.

    I dunno...

  • sacoura

    Posted Apr 18, 2009 8:27 pm PT

    SadisticSid,

    Youre opinion and theory is very plausible and actually true but you made a mistake that biased your whole theory. This is not peer to peer like and online game. This is simply a streaming of video and audio just like watching a video review of gamespot in 540p. This is HD (sorta) and live too so if this is possible then this concept is too. The whole game is rendered on another machine, then that machine output the video and audio to your computer so you simply download audio and video just like a gamespot review, added the controls bu just like gamespot when you pause the video its instant and you can fastforward and revwinf and those controls act instantly its the same with this system. all buttons only takes a couple pings to get there so its instant as well. if watching a gamespot video review in hd and pause as you wantinstantly its all too plausile this concept can work too lag free. also its a direct link theres no peers in the process unless its an online game but im tlaking of the single player stuff. Cheers.

  • xophaser

    Posted Apr 17, 2009 10:27 am PT

    This is the future. I remember the PS3 cell was suppose to do this, but they couldn't make it happen. The problem now is only like 10-25% of the people would have any connection speed fast enough to make this works without lagging.

    Then I am hearing that TimerWarner and AT&T (others many follow) are going to limit bandwidth/download limit and charge extra is you go over.

  • Dramacide

    Posted Apr 15, 2009 10:46 am PT

    I'm skeptical but I will wait and see... Until then I'm sticking with my Xbox live subscription.

  • the_man_I_am

    Posted Apr 12, 2009 12:04 pm PT

    Looks cool never heard of this till now.

  • tonicmole

    Posted Apr 12, 2009 9:32 am PT

    WOW! People are sure hot and bothered by this. What they are doing is not magic or impossible, it's just clever. Slight of hand streaming and condensing. This is not new. There are games online RIGHT NOW that use similar tech. You download a browser and GO! These guys just perfected and use more of their resources instead of yours. THE PROBLEM actually is that you own nothing. If they go out of business all your saves, games and anything else you buy is gone forever. Also It sounds like we don't even get the chance to buy them because it's entirely pay to play. I don't mind buying digital copies of movies and games but I do if I don't own the Harddrive that they exist on. It's maybe one step too far.

  • jediryan123

    Posted Apr 11, 2009 12:32 pm PT

    @SadisticSid

    Can we at least give it a chance? they won't release it till it is up to scratch.

  • mattcake

    Posted Apr 10, 2009 10:06 am PT

    I find it quite worrying that 10years ago I was playing Quake on a PC optimising my tcp receive window and packet size to get my ping as low as possible for the best gaming experience... this kind of thing just seems like a huge step backwards, adding latency where there's no need for it which ultimately ruins the experience. Until we all have high speed fibre optic connections and providers that dont rate/speed/download cap our connections, this sorta thing is a total waste of time sorry.

  • NetGod

    Posted Apr 9, 2009 7:34 pm PT

    Even if they manage to provide 'no lag' gaming, the resolution will still not be up to par!
    I'm not saying 720p sucks, I'm just saying 1080p dominates. If they can't even provide 1080p then 'other' HD platforms will draw the real gamers.

    Some version of this technology might fly when fiber optics are brought to the masses.

  • SadisticSid

    Posted Apr 9, 2009 1:24 pm PT

    The guy and his company is selling crap. The concept behind Onlive is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE to achieve with current technology for an *acceptable playing experience*. Let me explain with a hypothetical example:

    1) The game running on an Xbox requires you to press a button to dodge a zombie in something like Resident Evil and outputs to the screen to tell you to hit the X button. (Under normal circumstances, you'd see this the instant it happened.)
    2) The OnLive 'magic encoder chip' encodes the video, in real time, in HD (somehow, anyway - the company claims to have developed this holy grail of video technology itself?) Perlman has claimed that this only introduces 1ms of delay. Wow. That means his encoder can encode video at 1000fps! So, let's keep a running total of lag - 1ms so far.
    3) The video is transmitted across the net. Assuming OnLive has hardware installed at your ISP's local datacentre, which it almost certainly won't - this arrangement is only affordable to giant multi-billion dollar companies like Google - this will typically add 30-50ms for a consumer grade connection. 4) The player's box decodes the video stream. For a consumer PC or Mac, this isn't instantaneous - 50ms is about the minimum you can get.
    5) The player hits the X button. This is ~80-100ms after the event was prompted.
    6) The button press gets sent back along the net, adding another ~30/50ms lag.
    7) ~110-150ms after the prompt was pressed, the console playing the game receives the input.
    The video encoder encodes the result, then sends the result back to the player, which arrives ~30-50ms later. We're up to ~140-200ms lag time now.
    9) The PC or Mac decodes the video, adding another 50ms. End result - the player sees the outcome of the event 1/5s after it happened. For things like strategy games, this might work, but for everything else, it's already a bit laggy!

    If you add a dose of reality for the video encoding lag (which, if you dismiss his bollocks about 1ms delays as fantasy, enormous - at least 1s), lag or visual corruption introduced IP packet loss, lag introduced by the networking stacks along the route... then you might be able to play a turn based game without tearing your hair out. Everything else is going to lag like the recession.

  • mwesch

    Posted Apr 9, 2009 11:54 am PT

    What if you've got a download limit on your internet?

  • wyyldthing

    Posted Apr 9, 2009 10:38 am PT

    This is a joke. How is he gonna deliver power 3D animated interactivity with fidelity and accuracy over the net to someone running a $200 netbook? It can't be done. Source has been working on this for a decade now and they're not ready yet ~~ and they actually know what they're doing lol and brilliantly so. This is a clogged~up market and Steam pwns it, Mr. Perlman, try again! hehe...

  • warfighter172

    Posted Apr 9, 2009 9:27 am PT

    When I read this on the 1st of April I laughed beacuse im sure this is taking you for a fool. But I bet this has already been pointed out!

  • TheLemonGelati

    Posted Apr 8, 2009 3:24 pm PT

    I'll believe it when I see it, the sad thing is before anyone even finds out the details on this "system"(which this guy should have addressed) they are going to run out and buy it, taking On lines word for it. The last thing he says is it's a very Green system.. well "Green" doesn't cut it when it comes to gaming.

  • MihaiHornet

    Posted Apr 8, 2009 12:37 pm PT

    If you give up OnLive service, what happens with "your" games? This is just a rental in disguise.
    What about disk space for saves? I have 12GB+ of saves from The Witcher alone.
    There is a lot of valuable (and free) gaming content from gamers communities that will not be accessible under OnLive.
    How much will the subscription cost? If they are going to provide 24/7 the high end hardware required by games + the huge bandwidth, it's not going to be cheap.
    Are they going to upgrade hardware as fast as a PC gamer just to keep up with latest games? I don't think so.
    More OnLive clients will not be able to share a limited Internet connection.
    OnLive can't guarantee the quality of your ISP or of the Internet connectivity itself. But I'm sure that there will be a small disclaimer in their contract.

    How about sound? Will OnLive provide 7.1 and EAX?

    IMHO OnLive is just hype and will crash and burn in a few months.

  • RedsnakePCgamer

    Posted Apr 8, 2009 2:17 am PT

    He didn't actually explain anything about how it works!! I want to see some maths proving processing power requirements and scalability, latency, and contention issues are not going to be issues. This still seems californian pie in the sky thinking to me. "I've got a great idea, think it could work, give me some money, I'll get some people interested, we'll trial it in a couple of places, with a couple of hundred people, we'll sell a ten thousand units in 2 months to early adopters at stupid prices, we'll only lease the server space, whack on a couple cheap crap games, the hype will die in about 60 days, and we swan off into the sunset with a couple of million $ and that'll be that until the next big scam". We want to see the viablity proven Mr Pearlman, before you will see a penny! 1/2 million clients, with 10'000 users PLAYING not just watching and no hicups, and you might swing me, but until I see it, I can't believe it.

  • lee114

    Posted Apr 7, 2009 4:36 pm PT

    There is no way that my internet connection can stream the high resolution into my house and i am not going back from HD gaming to SD gaming. another thing i dont think they have considered download limits i have 20 GB limit, will this make me go over that?

  • qskatermaniac

    Posted Apr 7, 2009 3:02 pm PT

    This thing would be a lot more appealing if you had access to all the games and didn't have to buy or rent the games. Sounds like it would work for people who don't have a powerful enough pc to play a lot of games. My pc is not the best, but I do ok so I think I will pass this up.

  • hashmanalum

    Posted Apr 7, 2009 2:59 pm PT

    I think they bit more they could chew BUT, if it works, it's going to be a breakthrough in gaming history

  • djpetitte

    Posted Apr 7, 2009 6:04 am PT

    Computers will always be around, therefore pc gaming will also always be there .I agree that this onlive bs will be an option for softcore gamers in the future. People don't inderstand that pc gaming could never be completely wiped out (games for windows) think microsoft would let that happen? People on here seem to not know, that any of the games you're going to play onlive were created by high-end pc's, and still are. So you peolpe should be thanking the PC industry for creating these next gen games. Not bashing it, becuase-onlive. I predict that this won't be that great of a seller.. not like the Wii or 360 was. Not to metion the pc side has this already covered, its called Steam. This seems like some gimmick for newbie gamers.

  • mentalminiman

    Posted Apr 6, 2009 11:46 pm PT

    mentalminiman@homtail.co.uk: will these games come with the onlive or do you have to pay for them in some way and can you use xbox 360 controll pads with it? looks incredible!!! nice one guys =]

  • loonyt

    Posted Apr 6, 2009 9:14 pm PT

    One thing I see as a potential negative fro this service, is performance is going to be seriously dependent on you ping times.. Which means you better live close to the server. So this product will essentially be market limited, no non-local market unless they first establish a server complex in that market. For any other gaming system, games and systems can be sold in all markets in the world with only online games needing to worry about internet access issues.

  • Shiftfallout

    Posted Apr 6, 2009 8:29 pm PT

    @Newsky, you said "One last point: don't forget that when you buy software, you legally aren't actually buying anything other than the LICENSE to use the software." Thing is, they cannot stop you from using that software that you have on your person whenever and where ever you want. The difference being, it is the same as owning the actual product, compared to not having it at all. As for hardware manufacturers, they know that the average gamer doesnt need to purchase the latest and the greatest hardware to have top of the line graphics. The hardware is in part limited by the software thats its running. This means that while some will purchase the absolute best, its overkill and not really necessary. They keep manufacturing the technology though because there are secondary markets for the best of the best, it lowers the price of the latest tech when it floods the market, and it gets the exclusive deals by creating the more advanced product, again, even if its not currently necessary. You still went off on a tangent though, since you pretty much overlooked the response.

  • Newsky

    Posted Apr 6, 2009 8:19 pm PT

    @Shiftfallout: games, consoles, services, connections only cost what the market is willing to spend on them. If a someone wants to part with $$ to buy the latest and greatest, that is his/her perrogative.

    If you don't feel you are getting a good value proposition, then put your money into something you do.

    As for restrictive licensing models: I guess you don't have cable, or satellite television. Talk about captive programming.

    One last point: don't forget that when you buy software, you legally aren't actually buying anything other than the LICENSE to use the software.

  • WarPrime

    Posted Apr 6, 2009 8:09 pm PT

    This is all very unlikely! Check out this article for more information:

    http://doublebuffered.com/2009/04/05/why-onlive-wont-work/

  • Shiftfallout

    Posted Apr 6, 2009 8:03 pm PT

    @Newsky, if you actually bothered to put together a PC through them, you will find out that its not cobbled as you so put it. A PCs ability to have SLI or Crossfire is dependent upon the motherboard, and if you havent figured it out yet...those are NOT expensive. I prefer to build my own PCs from parts, however cheap barebone systems pre assembled are a very affordable alternative as well. A $300 PC can be as powerful, if not more so, than current gen consoles, furthermore, the process of upgrading it is in fact quite cheap. MathiasX has no idea what he is talking about, he basis his opinions off of his so called "friends". I am a working adult who also builds computers for fun, and is not afraid to spend money for this hobby called gaming. Most adults with professional and or above min wage jobs will not have a problem supporting this hobby, since its a cheap one. My input is based on experience, compared to what his "friends tell him". Big difference. You see the irony is that next gen consoles cost more long term. Microsoft and Sony take profit losses with their consoles, meaning they actually lose money every time someone buys a console. The consoles cost more to make than what they sell for. This means they have to make up that loss in other ways. Increased prices for games, restrictive services and options based on purchasing new services or peripherals, ads...ect Its a proven fact that when you become a dedicated console gamer, you will spend more than a dedicated PC gamer at the end of the day. PC gaming is cheap, only un-informed people will get ripped off by thinking they need to pay $1500+ for a gaming rig. Nice try though. Onlive will fail btw, if you look at all the points made previously, it is a service that is a liability. The moment you stop paying their subscription is the moment you cannot play all those games you purchased, cant pay your internet? you cant have access to those games you payed for. If you dont have the most expensive internet connection, you will have less than average quality game visuals as its downgraded to fit your internet speed. If you go on vacation, or to a friends house, if they do not have super speed internets, you lose access to the product you purchased, all while still paying premium subscriptions in addition to it. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo also will not let it take off, though i believe they have nothing to worry about, and they know it.

  • Newsky

    Posted Apr 6, 2009 7:40 pm PT

    A couple of points:

    1. @Shiftfallout, if you want to buy a cobbled together pc from ibuypower.com for $300 go ahead. It will definately not be xfire or sli capable at that price.

    2. OnLive will very likely not replace consoles or pc's for those that want them or the 'hardcore' gamers, it COULD very easily become a casual gamers perfect choice. Lets wait and see what the pricing models really are.

    3. If you want to get a pretty good idea of how well it would perform, I'd wager it would feel no different than HD movies/tv on demand, (which is already a tried and true business model that makes cable companies hundreds of millions of dollars per year), and if thier codec performance is better than the cable companies, might even be a fair bit better.

    Ultimately, it will be your choice to hook up to OnLive or not. The service will live or die by its own merits.

  • Dv8fan

    Posted Apr 6, 2009 3:55 pm PT

    While I'm most likely more afraid than anyone about something I paid for no longer being mine, it seems to me the money being saved by eliminating the need for local hardware upgrades may well be worth the "rented" feel of the system. Although I don't know how the pricing model will work, I'm sure it will be more cost effective than the purchase of new games and the maintenance of up-to-date equipment. I also assume that the system will work as effectively and as efficiently as described. You may call that a stupid assumption to make, but I find no trouble making it. If it does not perform or if the pricing model is not appealing enough to pull people from conventional methods of video game purchase, then onLive will fail. I think that for the larger majority of console and PC gamers, a majority that I would assume is not as vocal as those present in this discussion (heck, this is my first contribution to any website like this), this system will prove convenient and cost effective. As I've said before, if it does not it simply will not last. For me, I would welcome a system such as this. I would probably welcome it more readily, however, if there were no subscription involved. Being a "binge gamer," I do not enjoy paying a monthly fee when some months I may only use a service for a few days. This is why MMO's and i don't get along. Again, I don't know if subscription is involved or not, but it would certainly make it less appealing for me. Give it a shot, it certainly is interesting. While I don't understand how they can go through with what they've promised, I'd sure love to see it happen.

  • ace-of-spades93

    Posted Apr 6, 2009 2:38 pm PT

    is this available in UK?

  • adsyboy1994

    Posted Apr 6, 2009 11:25 am PT

    STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT PRICING!!

  • mathiasX

    Posted Apr 6, 2009 10:49 am PT

    @Shiftfallout, Ok, first off I don't have a Desktop PC for the reason of having to constantly upgrade to play the lastest next-gen titles. With that said, I would have to spend about 1600.00 in order to receive a PC I would be happy with for probably about 3 or 4 years before i'd have to inevitable upgrade further. It costs money to be a PC gamer, some of my friends are just that and I see just how much money they drop just to run newer games at max settings to which I laugh and sit down and play my PS3 or Xbox360 comfortably and I dont have to go out and buy new hardware/software, wait for something to be sent to me, put stuff in my PC/take it out etc. it seems to be way less of a hassle than being a PC gamer. ID rather spend $300.00 every 5 years on a new console than spend 5 or 6 times that on upgrading a PC any day. Not trying to make waves here or anything, just telling it how it is because i'm around PC gamers. This is the good part of OnLive, if your NOT a PC gamer and you wanna try it at a lower cost than it seems pretty good to me.

  • srgtfury

    Posted Apr 6, 2009 10:35 am PT

    Interesting idea but if my internet connection drops or Live is down for maintenance I can still pop a disc in my 360 and play offline. I also just prefer to have a physical copy of my game. I can keep it for as long as I want, lend it to a friend, or trade it for another title.

  • BLuFAlc0n

    Posted Apr 6, 2009 8:55 am PT

    The new generation of rip-off!
    This can actually beat Xbox Livve when it comes to ripping-off people!

  • emacdaddy08

    Posted Apr 6, 2009 5:50 am PT

    you pay a subscription fee each month, and you buy each individual game, and in the end you'll only be able to play those games you bought as long as your subscription doesn't run out. video games for rent? wtf, this whole thing just disgusts me. i can't believe people are looking forward to this.

  • Shiftfallout

    Posted Apr 6, 2009 12:20 am PT

    @MathiasX, you know nothing about computers and their prices. At ibuypower.com you can get a barebone system (2gigs of RAM, dualcore cpu 5000ghz total, large hard drive, case, mobo, pretty much everything needed to run a current gen game) for approximately $300. If you actually build it yourself you can go cheaper. A nvidia geforce 9800 gpu 1gb..ect can be found for around $125, and there are even lower prices out there for other cards. Basically, a computer does so much more than any console and can be had for very cheap while able to play the latest games. You have no idea what you are talking about. Lets assume you already have a PC though, like this system i mentioned above. Its cheaper then to upgrade it. Get another video card and link them together for SLI or Xfire, add more RAM. Essentially, you dont need to buy a new computer every time you want to upgrade. Furthermore, console games cost more. PC games can be patched, modded, and enhanced. This is much cheaper than the alternative. Nice try MathiasX but you need to know what you are talking about before trying.

  • promano3

    Posted Apr 5, 2009 9:48 pm PT

    I'll hold my breath on this and restrain my judgment for now. The reviews will tell all...

  • moondogyx09er

    Posted Apr 5, 2009 8:56 pm PT

    will this be hackable?

  • moondogyx09er

    Posted Apr 5, 2009 8:54 pm PT

    besides i dont think onlive can keep up with the strides gaming will bring
    any day now ..........sometime in the near future

  • moondogyx09er

    Posted Apr 5, 2009 8:50 pm PT

    i have a question, lets say its not so bad how will the ind. cope, for better or worse

  • mathiasX

    Posted Apr 5, 2009 4:42 pm PT

    Just remember all the crack pots doubting and saying the world was flat even in the face of proof...OnLive will be the biger than a crappy motion sensing bore fest ala. the Wii.

  • mathiasX

    Posted Apr 5, 2009 4:38 pm PT

    I spent 700 dollars combined on two top of the line video game systems...$700.00 isnt enough to run high end graphic games on a PC..sorry, id have to spend double or triple that ammount, and therein lies the beauty of OnLive.

  • georgeverity

    Posted Apr 5, 2009 2:33 pm PT

    i gotta admit... i agree with everything djpetitte said... I signed on for the beta this summer, so if i get accepted I'm going to beat Crysis and then be done with the service for good. I would much rather have a physical copy, or a Steam copy of my games than this On Live crap.

advertisement

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!