Onlive: The next revolution in PC gaming

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]So how does this work? Are they rendering and running the game on a server, then sending the video feed via internet to your PC/Mac? SEANMCAD

exactly. which is pretty cool in its own right but still..720p? no thanks

[QUOTE="Precyse"]

I think it's a good thing for gaming in general and especially the pc, because most people use a pc for diff apps. including games and it's the most owned "console" and used of them all. I can see coming over to the pc side which will increase the amount of games available and it'll also lead to more exclusives and attention from devs. who will focus more on the pc which will become the preferred console of choice for most people.

SEANMCAD

why do you think a best case of 720p(withvery good internet connection) for the PC when most of us are playing at 1080p?

I guess I need someone to explain to me why this is good for the PC

People said Virtual Boy would be awesome and it was rubbish. People said Dreamcast would see it through and it failed, bad. People said Webtv would be the revolution of tv and it was terrible. People said Speech recognition is the future and it became forgotten in the past. People said the Net PC will be the center for casual users and it became a thing of the past.

I think it's a good thing for gaming in general and especially the pc, because most people use a pc for diff apps. including games and it's the most owned "console" and used of them all. I can see coming over to the pc side which will increase the amount of games available and it'll also lead to more exclusives and attention from devs. who will focus more on the pc which will become the preferred console of choice for most people.

Precyse

I agree. It may be the bounce back of pc gaming.

Did these guys find the holy grail of internet connections? My games lag like hell already, and they're installed on my PC. Kind of skeptical that it'll be a good system this year. Maybe in several years, sure, but not this summer.

Oh and I'd bet a lot of these major gaming companies are jumping on board in no small part because of the huge anti-piracy possibilities of this delivery method.

[QUOTE="Precyse"]

I think it's a good thing for gaming in general and especially the pc, because most people use a pc for diff apps. including games and it's the most owned "console" and used of them all. I can see coming over to the pc side which will increase the amount of games available and it'll also lead to more exclusives and attention from devs. who will focus more on the pc which will become the preferred console of choice for most people.

SEANMCAD

why do you think a best case of 720p(withvery good internet connection) for the PC when most of us are playing at 1080p?

I guess I need someone to explain to me why this is good for the PC

[QUOTE="Precyse"]

I think it's a good thing for gaming in general and especially the pc, because most people use a pc for diff apps. including games and it's the most owned "console" and used of them all. I can see coming over to the pc side which will increase the amount of games available and it'll also lead to more exclusives and attention from devs. who will focus more on the pc which will become the preferred console of choice for most people.

SEANMCAD

why do you think a best case of 720p(withvery good internet connection) for the PC when most of us are playing at 1080p?

I guess I need someone to explain to me why this is good for the PC

liketheintrospect79 said it''ll open up more people to get pc's if they play crysis and other games and like them they''ll eventually build/buy a pc topurchase and playthose games and others.

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"][QUOTE="SEANMCAD"]

why do you think a best case of 720p(withvery good internet connection) for the PC when most of us are playing at 1080p?

I guess I need someone to explain to me why this is good for the PC

Oh wow! thanks I honestly didnt know that. I assumed I was mostly correct becuase all the gamers in my guild have 26" monitors.

So I am in at least the 5% of gamers, actually even more becuase i have 30" monitor 1600p. Even though that sounds 100% like I am bragging and most likely I am. I feel that am not, just making an observation.

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"][QUOTE="SEANMCAD"]

why do you think a best case of 720p(withvery good internet connection) for the PC when most of us are playing at 1080p?

I guess I need someone to explain to me why this is good for the PC

SEANMCAD

Oh wow! thanks I honestly didnt know that. I assumed I was mostly correct becuase all the gamers in my guild have 26" monitors.

So I am in at least the 5% of gamers, actually even more becuase i have 30" monitor 1600p. Even though that sounds 100% like I am bragging and most likely I am. I feel that am not, just making an observation.

I hope this doesnt catch on. I like mods and having the ability to play games offline.

dnuggs: that's cause most people have a 16:10 computer monitor, which is 1680x1050. It's far closer in quality to 1080p than 720p, which would be a pretty big downgrade. Onlive could possibly replace consoles, since they both serve the same purpose of simplifying PC gaming and making it cheaper.F1_2004

I hope this doesnt catch on. I like mods and having the ability to play games offline.

flclempire

[QUOTE="F1_2004"]dnuggs: that's cause most people have a 16:10 computer monitor, which is 1680x1050. It's far closer in quality to 1080p than 720p, which would be a pretty big downgrade. Onlive could possibly replace consoles, since they both serve the same purpose of simplifying PC gaming and making it cheaper.dnuggs40

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"][QUOTE="F1_2004"]dnuggs: that's cause most people have a 16:10 computer monitor, which is 1680x1050. It's far closer in quality to 1080p than 720p, which would be a pretty big downgrade. Onlive could possibly replace consoles, since they both serve the same purpose of simplifying PC gaming and making it cheaper.OoSuperMarioO

According to: http://www.joystiq.com/2008/02/07/steam-hits-15-million-users/

In Feb 08 they hit 15 million users. Over a year has passed and my bet is they have more now...but regardless...15 million users is probably a pretty good sample size.

Of course their statistics are not exact...but with a sample that large and a gaming community that is diverse as steams (they cater to hardcore, indie, and casual gamers alike) I think it's pretty safe to assume that the reality of the pc gaming community is pretty close to what they report.

[QUOTE="F1_2004"]dnuggs: that's cause most people have a 16:10 computer monitor, which is 1680x1050. It's far closer in quality to 1080p than 720p, which would be a pretty big downgrade. Onlive could possibly replace consoles, since they both serve the same purpose of simplifying PC gaming and making it cheaper.dnuggs40

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"] Most people do not have a 1680X1050 monitor...in fact, only 16.50% do. The vast majority are gaming on less. http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/dnuggs40

According to: http://www.joystiq.com/2008/02/07/steam-hits-15-million-users/

In Feb 08 they hit 15 million users. Over a year has passed and my bet is they have more now...but regardless...15 million users is probably a pretty good sample size.

Of course their statistics are not exact...but with a sample that large and a gaming community that is diverse as steams (they cater to hardcore, indie, and casual gamers alike) I think it's pretty safe to assume that the reality of the pc gaming community is pretty close to what they report.

How many PC gamers are there? I've seen estimates under a ~100 million, to highs of over ~300 million. Personally I lean more toward the high end of the spectrum. If I had to put a stake in the ground I'd say that there are at least ~100-150m enthusiast (high-end) and mainstream gamers, and potentially another ~100-200m more casual gamers. It can also fluctuate a little up and down based on AAA game availability.

Matt's blog can be found here http://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2009/03/03/just-how-many-pc-gamers-are-there/

Also, I'm curious now if Onlive supports 1.6:1 ratios.

Edit: 480p and 720p is more then enough evidence for me to know the focus direction of Onlive, going to be marvelous to display those formats on my TV.

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"][QUOTE="F1_2004"]dnuggs: that's cause most people have a 16:10 computer monitor, which is 1680x1050. It's far closer in quality to 1080p than 720p, which would be a pretty big downgrade. Onlive could possibly replace consoles, since they both serve the same purpose of simplifying PC gaming and making it cheaper.F1_2004

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]What percentage is Steam subscriptions to PC Gamers, offline and online?

OoSuperMarioO

According to: http://www.joystiq.com/2008/02/07/steam-hits-15-million-users/

In Feb 08 they hit 15 million users. Over a year has passed and my bet is they have more now...but regardless...15 million users is probably a pretty good sample size.

Of course their statistics are not exact...but with a sample that large and a gaming community that is diverse as steams (they cater to hardcore, indie, and casual gamers alike) I think it's pretty safe to assume that the reality of the pc gaming community is pretty close to what they report.

How many PC gamers are there? I've seen estimates under a ~100 million, to highs of over ~300 million. Personally I lean more toward the high end of the spectrum. If I had to put a stake in the ground I'd say that there are at least ~100-150m enthusiast (high-end) and mainstream gamers, and potentially another ~100-200m more casual gamers. It can also fluctuate a little up and down based on AAA game availability.

Matt's blog can be found here http://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2009/03/03/just-how-many-pc-gamers-are-there/

Also, I'm curious now if Onlive supports 1.6:1 ratios.

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]

According to: http://www.joystiq.com/2008/02/07/steam-hits-15-million-users/

In Feb 08 they hit 15 million users. Over a year has passed and my bet is they have more now...but regardless...15 million users is probably a pretty good sample size.

Of course their statistics are not exact...but with a sample that large and a gaming community that is diverse as steams (they cater to hardcore, indie, and casual gamers alike) I think it's pretty safe to assume that the reality of the pc gaming community is pretty close to what they report.

dnuggs40

How many PC gamers are there? I've seen estimates under a ~100 million, to highs of over ~300 million. Personally I lean more toward the high end of the spectrum. If I had to put a stake in the ground I'd say that there are at least ~100-150m enthusiast (high-end) and mainstream gamers, and potentially another ~100-200m more casual gamers. It can also fluctuate a little up and down based on AAA game availability.

Matt's blog can be found here http://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2009/03/03/just-how-many-pc-gamers-are-there/

Also, I'm curious now if Onlive supports 1.6:1 ratios.

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"][QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"] well OK, but 1680x1050 is the third most common resolution. The rest are all spread out over various resolutions, but only about 25% of the resolutions used are less than 1280x720 or "720p". So 75% of the population is playing on something better than 720p.

OoSuperMarioO

well also something i didnt consider is all the shaders etc. If the server is doing all the high end directx 10 work and sending it as a video feed at 720p that could be a very intresting compared to trying to run less shaders at a higher res.

My personal problem is that 720p on my 30" monitor is to large and it forces me to sit away from my desk which kinda sucks

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"] But most of them are playing around that resolution...the difference between 1280X1024 and 720p isn't that dramatic...which is exactly who these people are targeting. dnuggs40

well also something i didnt consider is all the shaders etc. If the server is doing all the high end directx 10 work and sending it as a video feed at 720p that could be a very intresting compared to trying to run less shaders at a higher res.

My personal problem is that 720p on my 30" monitor is to large and it forces me to sit away from my desk which kinda sucks

Not the real SuperMario lol...

I think people are missing the bigger issue here. It is not a question of whether your internet connection can handle the task of streaming the video feed. The real problem is INPUT LAG, not video lag INPUT LAG. Even if you imagined you had a perfect networking protocol, the speed of electricity is finite. This means anytime you press the jump key, anytime you click LMB to fire, anytime you try to turn, your input is sent from your computer, across hundreds of miles to their servers where it is processed and then sent back hundreds of miles before you even see the action happening on your screen. Imagine trying to play anything fast paced, like Quake or Unreal, where you have to wait 0.2-0.5 seconds before seeing the results of your actions. It certainly wouldn't be a whole lot of fun.

You can't get around this issue with a "latency reducing techniques" because it doesn't change the fact that the signal has to travel a set distance at a finite speed. People commonly complain of server latency in the range of 0.1-0.2 seconds. This only affects updating the position of everything you see on the server. Now imagine playing this way but, no only do you experience the usual server lag, but now you have the same lag affecting the very control of your character. Unless they put a server in your house, your going to notice issues.

None of this even addresses the modding scene, which would not be possible on this type of system

I think people are missing the bigger issue here. It is not a question of whether your internet connection can handle the task of streaming the video feed. The real problem is INPUT LAG, not video lag INPUT LAG. Even if you imagined you had a perfect networking protocol, the speed of electricity is finite. This means anytime you press the jump key, anytime you click LMB to fire, anytime you try to turn, your input is sent from your computer, across hundreds of miles to their servers where it is processed and then sent back hundreds of miles before you even see the action happening on your screen. Imagine trying to play anything fast paced, like Quake or Unreal, where you have to wait 0.2-0.5 seconds before seeing the results of your actions. It certainly wouldn't be a whole lot of fun.

You can't get around this issue with a "latency reducing techniques" because it doesn't change the fact that the signal has to travel a set distance at a finite speed. People commonly complain of server latency in the range of 0.1-0.2 seconds. This only affects updating the position of everything you see on the server. Now imagine playing this way but, no only do you experience the usual server lag, but now you have the same lag affecting the very control of your character. Unless they put a server in your house, your going to notice issues.

None of this even addresses the modding scene, which would not be possible on this type of system

tmbroe01

You pretty much summed up your observation there bud, "As long as you have the connection to support it". People that are really going to enjoy the benefits of Onlive are users with steady incomes, 1.6mb/sec is not enough and 5mb/sec connection is rather costly. Personally, users who can't manage a modest PC for gaming will still dedicate to console hardware. There will indeed be consumers that are going to grab the marketing bait from Onlive until they actually identify the picture quality is rubbish. Our market has moved into a HD format and Onlive seems to fall short of efficiency for this. Nevertheless, I stand by what I said and until picture quality improves for PC users it's rather uninteresting, but a great step for Consoles. Over the years once networking has vastly improved, Cloud Computing will certainly be marvelous for a PC Gamer.

OoSuperMarioO

Are you kidding me? Why do you think it needs to support every person on the planet to be successful? There are more than enough people in the states with adequate connections to make online a success. And your logic on HD gaming is seriously flawed because the VAST majority of computer "gamers" don't give two craps because their machines can't run any modern pc game anyway. You could make the comparison between the wii and the ps3. Did the wii's much lower HD capeabilities make it any less of a hit? Especially in the current economy where people just don't have $500+ to drop on a hefty console with all the bells and whistles.

But again, the way I see it, if you're already on the bleeding edge and you upgrade regularly then onlive really isnt for you. Keep doing what you do. For OTHER people who have always wanted to get into PC gaming or people like me who have fallen so far behind the hardware race that I can't play many game that i'd like to, like crysis, onlive is a godsend. The difference between 1080 and 480 is'nt really going to make or break the deal for me. Resolutions and aspect ratios are things that power gamers worry about, and i've been off that wagon for awhile now. As long as it looks and plays good, i'm happy. And I have a speedy internet connection with no bandwith cap to utilize it.

Bring it on!

Eager to know what the Big 3 thinks about Onlive, in addition to Intel, Nvidia and AMD/ATI. I certainly can see the big 3 adapting Cloud Computing in their next console hardwares to neglect Onlive.

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but it's a good video:

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/47080.html

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/47082.html

Guy talks about the service more in depth, towards the very end (of the first video) he also talks about input lag and compression. I have to admit...this idea is very interesting.

*edit*

Watching part 2 now...

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but it's a good video:

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/47080.html

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/47082.html

Guy talks about the service more in depth, towards the very end (of the first video) he also talks about input lag and compression. I have to admit...this idea is very interesting.

*edit*

Watching part 2 now...

dnuggs40

The last 2-3 minutes of the second video is EXACTLY what i'm talking about. Onlive is just a supplament for PC gaming, it's not going to replace the way we do things now. But it will help us folks who arent fortunate enough to be able to have a gaming rig for various reasons. And bring in lots of new pc gamers, I think.

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]

You pretty much summed up your observation there bud, "As long as you have the connection to support it". People that are really going to enjoy the benefits of Onlive are users with steady incomes, 1.6mb/sec is not enough and 5mb/sec connection is rather costly. Personally, users who can't manage a modest PC for gaming will still dedicate to console hardware. There will indeed be consumers that are going to grab the marketing bait from Onliveuntil they actually identify the picture quality is rubbish. Our market has moved into a HD format and Onlive seems to fall short of efficiency for this. Nevertheless, I stand by what I said and until picture quality improves for PC users it's rather uninteresting, but a great step for Consoles. Over the years once networking has vastly improved, Cloud Computing will certainly be marvelous for a PC Gamer.

TeamR

Are you kidding me? Why do you think it needs to support every person on the planet to be successful? There are more than enough people in the states with adequate connections to make online a success. And your logic on HD gaming is seriously flawed because the VAST majority of computer "gamers" don't give two craps because their machines can't run any modern pc game anyway. You could make the comparison between the wii and the ps3. Did the wii's much lower HD capeabilities make it any less of a hit? Especially in the current economy where people just don't have $500+ to drop on a hefty console with all the bells and whistles.

But again, the way I see it, if you're already on the bleeding edge and you upgrade regularly then onlive really isnt for you. Keep doing what you do. For OTHER people who have always wanted to get into PC gaming or people like me who have fallen so far behind the hardware race that I can't play many game that i'd like to, like crysis, onlive is a godsend. The difference between 1080 and 480 is'nt really going to make or break the deal for me. Resolutions and aspect ratios are things that power gamers worry about, and i've been off that wagon for awhile now. As long as it looks and plays good, i'm happy. And I have a speedy internet connection with no bandwith cap to utilize it.

Bring it on!

"The difference between 1080 and 480 is'nt really going to make or break the deal for me. Resolutions and aspect ratios are things that power gamers worry about, and i've been off that wagon for awhile now. As long as it looks and plays good, i'm happy." Have fun playing in 480p window mode bud, I'll see you online..

"The difference between 1080 and 480 is'nt really going to make or break the deal for me. Resolutions and aspect ratios are things that power gamers worry about, and i've been off that wagon for awhile now. As long as it looks and plays good, i'm happy." Have fun playing in 480p window mode bud, I'll see you online..

OoSuperMarioO

Funny enough, that's exactly how I play WoW on my laptop. lol

See ya there

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]

"The difference between 1080 and 480 is'nt really going to make or break the deal for me. Resolutions and aspect ratios are things that power gamers worry about, and i've been off that wagon for awhile now. As long as it looks and plays good, i'm happy." Have fun playing in 480p window mode bud, I'll see you online..

TeamR

Funny enough, that's exactly how I play WoW on my laptop. lol

See ya there

[QUOTE="tmbroe01"]

I think people are missing the bigger issue here. It is not a question of whether your internet connection can handle the task of streaming the video feed. The real problem is INPUT LAG, not video lag INPUT LAG. Even if you imagined you had a perfect networking protocol, the speed of electricity is finite. This means anytime you press the jump key, anytime you click LMB to fire, anytime you try to turn, your input is sent from your computer, across hundreds of miles to their servers where it is processed and then sent back hundreds of miles before you even see the action happening on your screen. Imagine trying to play anything fast paced, like Quake or Unreal, where you have to wait 0.2-0.5 seconds before seeing the results of your actions. It certainly wouldn't be a whole lot of fun.

You can't get around this issue with a "latency reducing techniques" because it doesn't change the fact that the signal has to travel a set distance at a finite speed. People commonly complain of server latency in the range of 0.1-0.2 seconds. This only affects updating the position of everything you see on the server. Now imagine playing this way but, no only do you experience the usual server lag, but now you have the same lag affecting the very control of your character. Unless they put a server in your house, your going to notice issues.

None of this even addresses the modding scene, which would not be possible on this type of system

dnuggs40

The cool thing here is that your only requirement is a capable internet connection and some sort of computer. In theory, you should be able to play Crysis on a netbook. A handful of us have played the game, at its highest settings, on a MacBook Air with the service. Not only is the game not normally available on the Mac (outside of running Boot Camp), but the MacBook Air is hardly a gaming device, and yet we were able to hop in and play it as smoothly as a nicely-specced machine. We also played Burnout Paradise on a similarly-equipped PC laptop, and despite how quick that game is, it ran and played fine as well. Do the games run at 60fps? Technically, yes, but the video stream makes it feel less so. They're still smooth, but Burnout wasn't as brisk as it is on a PS3, for instance. But make no mistake - everything we tried was completely playable (and most importantly, quite responsive), and being that you're able to play these games without any dedicated hardware, that's a huge, huge thing. article

Did you even read my post?

He's talking about video lag, or how smooth the video played. I'm talking about INPUT lag, the amount of time between when you input a command and when it appears on screen. I fully believe they could have developed a smooth method of streaming a video feed. There is no way, however around the fact that there will be a noticeable amount of time between when you input a command and when you finally see it carried out on your screen.

Have you ever connected to another computer using a remote desktop program? This is the exact same thing. When I connect to my university's computer through a remote application, even when I'm in the same building as the computer and I'm connected over a LAN I notice a difference in the time between input and action.

Here's an experiment for you. If you have two computers, connect them over a LAN. Then connect to your gaming rig remotely using the other computer and try to play a game. Watch the hilarity ensue.

EDIT: I accept that they may get decent response times in their testing environment, right there with the server. I do not for one second believe anyone who is situated hundreds or thousands of miles away is going to see anywhere near acceptable reponse times. If they tell you otherwise, they're trying to sell you something(guess what they are).

I did read your post, but I have doubts you read mine. They said quite plainly it was "completely playable" and "most importantly, quite responsive". He is talking about the playability of the game...ie...responsiveness of the game. Also, if you took the time to watch the videos, they cover how they deal with inputs. And your remote desktop example is failure...this is a different technology. Welcome to 2009. Anyways, read the articles, watch the videos...your concerns have been addressed.

"EDIT: I accept that they may get decent response times in their testing environment, right there with the server. I do not for one second believe anyone who is situated hundreds or thousands of miles away is going to see anywhere near acceptable reponse times. If they tell you otherwise, they're trying to sell you something(guess what they are)."

If I am not mistake,n this was tested at GDC09, not at their testing environment.

Welcome to 2009. Anyways, read the articles, watch the videos...your concerns have been addressed.dnuggs40

Yeah. I just have a hard time believing that these guys spent 7 years developing a system that didn't take input lag into account. For a service like this it would need to be an issue addressed at every level of development. All the evidence and first hand previews state that the games are completely playable, so until I can test it for myself I will just have to believe that it is.

I did read your post, but I have doubts you read mine. They said quite plainly it was "completely playable" and "most importantly, quite responsive". He is talking about the playability of the game...ie...responsiveness of the game. Also, if you took the time to watch the videos, they cover how they deal with inputs. And your remote desktop example is failure...this is a different technology. Welcome to 2009. Anyways, read the articles, watch the videos...your concerns have been addressed.

"EDIT: I accept that they may get decent response times in their testing environment, right there with the server. I do not for one second believe anyone who is situated hundreds or thousands of miles away is going to see anywhere near acceptable reponse times. If they tell you otherwise, they're trying to sell you something(guess what they are)."

If I am not mistake,n this was tested at GDC09, not at their testing environment.

dnuggs40

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]

I did read your post, but I have doubts you read mine. They said quite plainly it was "completely playable" and "most importantly, quite responsive". He is talking about the playability of the game...ie...responsiveness of the game. Also, if you took the time to watch the videos, they cover how they deal with inputs. And your remote desktop example is failure...this is a different technology. Welcome to 2009. Anyways, read the articles, watch the videos...your concerns have been addressed.

"EDIT: I accept that they may get decent response times in their testing environment, right there with the server. I do not for one second believe anyone who is situated hundreds or thousands of miles away is going to see anywhere near acceptable reponse times. If they tell you otherwise, they're trying to sell you something(guess what they are)."

If I am not mistake,n this was tested at GDC09, not at their testing environment.

F1_2004

I did read your post, but I have doubts you read mine. They said quite plainly it was "completely playable" and "most importantly, quite responsive". He is talking about the playability of the game...ie...responsiveness of the game. Also, if you took the time to watch the videos, they cover how they deal with inputs. And your remote desktop example is failure...this is a different technology. Welcome to 2009. Anyways, read the articles, watch the videos...your concerns have been addressed.

"EDIT: I accept that they may get decent response times in their testing environment, right there with the server. I do not for one second believe anyone who is situated hundreds or thousands of miles away is going to see anywhere near acceptable reponse times. If they tell you otherwise, they're trying to sell you something(guess what they are)."

If I am not mistake,n this was tested at GDC09, not at their testing environment.

dnuggs40

You make some good points and I'll admit that the remote desktop example is an exaggeration, I was using it to illustrate the idea of input lag and how noticeable a problem it can be.

I just find it very hard to believe that they've found some method of negating it. For instance other than handling the network on their end, they have very little control over the signal, and its transit time, between their server and your computer, which is where the majority of the input lag is going to arise. I mean, most servers that are anymore than a couple of hundred miles away are going to have lags of 100-200 ms. If that lag was applied to your response time, it would be huge.

Now, I know they claim it's smooth and responsive, but they are trying to sell a product. Just because they demonstrated at GDC doesn't mean they weren't running it off a computer on site(I don't think they claimed otherwise?). Maybe to someone who doesn't really game much, a response lag of 0.1-0.3 seconds wouldn't be a big deal and they would think the response is just fine, but anyone who plays any amount of FPS or any other fast paced games
would notice it immediately and it would be unplayable.

It might work just as great as they claim, but I remain skeptical. Honestly, I'll be very surprised if it manages to overcome this problem. I'm actually afraid that rather than overcoming these issues, a service such as this will succeed despite of them.

"They" wasn't the developers of said technology..."they" was a reporter who tried it out at GDC09. Let me guess...they paid him off.dnuggs40

Well, that doesn't mean he wasn't playing through to a server that was on site at GDC.

Heck, they could have had him connected directly to the computer he was playing on and he wouldn't have known(I'm not suggesting they actually did this...).

The person who tried it at GDC09 was a game journalist. Regarding them having the equipment in the back room in order to fool the people testing it out...well I guess that could be true. I have a very hard time believing this is the case though. These guys obviously have invested MILLIONS of dollars and have been working on it for 7 years...dnuggs40

To be honest, I don't trust game journalists a whole lot, they're always looking to jump onto the next big thing. As for your point on investing millions of dollars, that's all the more reason to make sure you provide the best possible experience at a demonstration.

I really do think this thing looks interesting, though not my cup of tea, however, there are significant technical hurdles that it somehow overcomes that I find hard to believe it has succeeded at.

I am surprised more people haven't mentioned the cost yet. Whether your pc or their server processes a game, someone has to have the hardware to do it. If they have the hardware, they will charge for it. You do gain some economy of scale savings since not all users would be on at once, but still the cost of a server running Crysis on high settings for a hundred people at once would be tremendous.

If someone can only afford a $500 computer, how will they pay the inevitably high fees that will come with this. We pay $15 a month for mmos on which the servers do far far far less processing. My guess is that they will have to price themselves out of the market or make it run more simple flash style games.

One user said that this is what the criticism sounded like for steam when it started. The one big distinction is that Steam is free.

I'm getting 3-5MB/sec, so I think I'm set. :)

I am surprised more people haven't mentioned the cost yet. Whether your pc or their server processes a game, someone has to have the hardware to do it. If they have the hardware, they will charge for it. You do gain some economy of scale savings since not all users would be on at once, but still the cost of a server running Crysis on high settings for a hundred people at once would be tremendous.

If someone can only afford a $500 computer, how will they pay the inevitably high fees that will come with this. We pay $15 a month for mmos on which the servers do far far far less processing. My guess is that they will have to price themselves out of the market or make it run more simple flash style games.

One user said that this is what the criticism sounded like for steam when it started. The one big distinction is that Steam is free.

adrake4183