Would You use Onlive if it worked the way it wants you believe?

[CaseyV9]

Would you use Onlive if it worked well?

Heh, messed up my own poll

I would say "No thanks, I just think it is a really bad idea. I have better things to use my data usage on - I think it is just a bad idea full stop."

[PeterStoba]

No. I have decent PC thank you.

[TAKTAK]

No, fullstop, the UK's infrastructure cannot support such a scheme...

[transylvanic]

taktak, could you support your claim in some verifiable way?

[handscombmp]

Got a pc that can play the games i want thanks.

My only thing with online is that i highly doubt that you'll be able to have them in good graphics at native resolutions and surely with you actions they have to go all the way up to the server be processed and back down which in fast paced shooters won't be as good.
Plus where are you game saves kept.

[transylvanic]

Got a pc that can play the games i want thanks.

My only thing with online is that i highly doubt that you'll be able to have them in good graphics at native resolutions and surely with you actions they have to go all the way up to the server be processed and back down which in fast paced shooters won't be as good.
Plus where are you game saves kept.

I'm getting the distinct feeling someone is rationalising the excessive amount of cash he spent on a gaming rig

[Stephen C]

If it worked well I don't see why not.
Don't see too much chance in that mind but voted yes.

[TAKTAK]

taktak, could you support your claim in some verifiable way?

Are you trying to tell me that the UKs broadband infrastructure can support the amount of traffic that a service like this would require?

I don't care whether it says 5Mb connection, quite alot of this country doesn't even have that..

The average for the UK is 5.5Mb (according to some sources, and 3Mb according to others http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...oadbandspeedis), i'm not sure whether that includes T1 services etc, but if it does then that makes it even worse...

The network is allready bottlenecked as it is, with the current (fairly low) flow of data, as soon as you try to add more data flow to that equation, it just gets messy...

But obviously that is just my thoughts, lets use some numbers:*

lets say for example, that they use jpeg to compress the image size to reduce data flow..

lets say as an example, a decent quality L4D frame 600KB (as a jpeg) (just as an example ), now the major thing to take into account here is bits and bytes, for this example i will ignore extra bits such as start/stop/parity etc, so 8 bits to my byte.

lets take a much higher than average BB speed for the UK, lets say 8Mb (notice the mega bit )
so we divide that by 8 to get our speed in megabytes per second, so we have a (comparatively high [for the uk]) download speed of 1MBps

Now, continuing our sums, i'd say that a nice playable frame rate was ~60fps, so lets use that as our marker, heck, lets half that, and go with a 'passable' frame rate of 30fps, NO, lets go for an unplayable 15fps...

15 x 600KB = 9000KB

right so that is the data needed to be sent to your pc in this scenario, uh oh, that's 8.7MBps, that's not going to work, maybe if me go for an awful 5fps:

5 x 600KB = 3000KB

aah, that's better, a nice, oh, hand on, 2.9MBps, oh dear... lets try 2fps...

2 x 600KB = 1200KB

aaah that's much better, oh wait... no it's still 1.2MBps... we only have 1MBps...

how about 1fps then? that's playable.. right?

1 x 600KB = 600KB (well derr )

0.6MBps, YES!, we've cracked it, if we have really good BB so we are maxing out an ADSL line (not ADSL2+ ), then we can play at 1fps YAY!!!!111!!one

and aswell as having to get the display data from the server, you have to send the control data to the server, so lets say for example you have a ping of 100ms...

50ms, for the control data to reach the server, (negligible processing time from the server), and then 50ms to get back to you, giving you a control lag of 100ms

that's quite alot of time if you are playing an FPS, as you are essentially doing nothing while you wait, it's not like when you render it on your machine, yeah it's a little bit laggy but i can still hit things, and the controls are being processed by your machine and then your game position is sent to the server, your 'boom headshot' moments are going to be 'boom, oh he's moved now, and i'm still waiting for it to fire.... yay i missed' moments...

and that is also ignoring the fact that (in the example) you could fill up your 50GB monthly allowance (using the 1fps example) in 85333frames, or seconds, therefore 23.7 hours of game play per month at 1fps, maximum...

Sure the service may be slightly viable in Japan, but in the UK? no chance.

not if you want a decent game playing experience, or even just a modest one...

*Obviously these figures are just for a hypothetical situation, and may be completely inaccurate, but they still stand as an example

/rant and dysfunctional mathematics

[finlay666]

TAKTAK I assume the way it works will be more like a VOD service, pushing an I Frame ( your 600kb file) followed by a large number of smaller p/b frames (vector changes for images) so it actually uses a lot less than it appears to.

Even with that method for a reliable stream of a 720p video you need 4mb + and can still suffer from jitter, and that includes preloading, something a game can't really do due to the interactivity of it, and then there is lag on top, again not a problem for a streamed video but a big problem for a game.

[CaseyV9]

But if this company was run by magical Pixies that could deliver this service well, would you?

[watercooled]

No, I'd rather not hit download limits every time I played a game for a few minutes, and I'd much rather have my own hardware - building and tinkering with a PC is a big part of the fun. I also have a decent PC!
Besides, a real PC is very useful for other tasks besides gaming!

[mediaboy]

Given a choice between playing at 1fps (if those maths are right, which they seem to be) r playing at 60fps I know which I'd choose.

On the other hand, if this works as promised I'd probably use it. BUT I'd still rely on my computer primarily. I don't have an internet conenction 24/7 and that's not likely to change. So therefore this would never become my main source of gaming till I'm rich enuogh to afford extremely fast internet connections with similarly expensive bandwith allowance.

It'll be fun

[TAKTAK]

TAKTAK I assume the way it works will be more like a VOD service, pushing an I Frame ( your 600kb file) followed by a large number of smaller p/b frames (vector changes for images) so it actually uses a lot less than it appears to.

Oh aye, the filesize was a gross over estimate, hence the invisible disclaimer at the end of the post, but it still stands that the UK BB infrastructure can't support such a scheme.

But if this company was run by magical Pixies that could deliver this service well, would you?

Modern games, no.
Retro games, possibly, but no...

Given a choice between playing at 1fps (if those maths are right, which they seem to be) r playing at 60fps I know which I'd choose.

they're not right, they're just hypothetical figures used purely as an example to get my point accross, as finlay says, the throughput would be lower, but you still have a very large throughput and lag issue and usage limit...

[Main]

Assuming that it does exactly what is says on the tin...I doubt it.

It'll still come down to games, and if you already own a bunch of the launch titles and have the cabability to play them at a higher resolution than the system can provide, then things already aren't looking good for the service. It also isn't going to look too good if you're not too interested in the titles you haven't played that are on offer. Next up, what are the terms of the subscription going to be? This is a luxury and not a necessity, so they can't really get away with things like a 12+ month lock in. Then of course there's the non-obvious costs of requiring a high-powered internet connection to get the most from the service, including a reliable router. I've had multiple people gaming on a 512kb line without issues - this requires more than that for just one person.

Oh yes, and the thing that kills this idea all on it's own in my particular household: what about when more than one person uses a single internet connection? Heavy video streaming can easily conflict with games traffic, and this is before you take traffic shaping, peer to peer etc. into account.

[PeterStoba]

Don't get me wrong, if it worked flawlessly, I'd get one and sell my PC and build a very low power one to browse the internet, but that won't happen :0

[CaseyV9]

The main thing I worry about is the amount of time I have spent playing single player games. Take fallout 3. I have played Fallout 3, I'm guessing around 800hrs+. I have had multiple charcters there. Just think how much that be in data usage.

I don't know how it works, but HD video takes up a load of data usage. So streaming a game in HD must use loads. I'm guessing it would be cheaper just to buy the PC or console in the long run. Unless you are a casual gamer.