GDC 2009: OnLive
- Thread starter Team Hollywood
- Start date
It's a good idea. I like what they're trying to do. It's just too bad that it isn't going to work.
This didn't work for WebTV (which this guy also created), isn't going to work for this. I don't like the idea of waiting for a server or running single player games at >500 ping.
What happens when I travel?
I can pack up my console now, or laptop, or even desktop and take it with me!
With Onlive, I've got to be sure there is going to be a good internet connection, otherwise: No games.
I like the idea of not having to get a powerhouse PC to enjoy newer games, but I can't see this as a great leap forward for gaming. It's more like a leap...sideways.
New method, new problems.
I can pack up my console now, or laptop, or even desktop and take it with me!
With Onlive, I've got to be sure there is going to be a good internet connection, otherwise: No games.
I like the idea of not having to get a powerhouse PC to enjoy newer games, but I can't see this as a great leap forward for gaming. It's more like a leap...sideways.
New method, new problems.
If its all hosted on a massive server...what a massive kick in the teeth it would be when they crash...
Claiming its haxzor proof is just going to get it hacked faster...
I'll keep to my own consoles and such thanks.
Claiming its haxzor proof is just going to get it hacked faster...
I'll keep to my own consoles and such thanks.
I love how he claims its hacking and pirate proof, I give it 1 hour after the servers go live before the games are cracked and available on Pirate Bay.
As much as this is theoretically a good concept I just can't see it working in the real world where we have fair useage policies, limited bandwidth, contention ratios on phone lines and latency. Look at online games now, latency is the biggest single technical issue they grapple with, you expect that and even forgive them for it to a degree but you wouldn't tolerate that in normal single player games. This may work when you have your server and machines connected on a gigabit network but most people's broadband (at a guess) is probably in the 8 - 16 megabit range, which is far slower. Maybe when everyone is connected via optic fibre rather than the older copper line system and we have better services, until then I can't see it working properly.
And that's before we get to the problem of the servers the games are hosted on. Most servers are only built to crunch numbers and transmit/recieve data, there is no need for them to render graphics any more complex than their OS when the technician checks on them. This will put all of the graphics load onto them, not so bad when there's only a few connections but when you have hundreds or even thousands of people connected to each one the load on them will be enourmous. These servers will have to be all conquering monoliths of machines, and they'll be enourmously expensive, moreso than servers already are.
Like I said, its a good concept but that's all it seems to be, a concept, anyone who's ever worked in the technical side of IT could see the enormous problems this has to overcome before it could ever be a reality.
As much as this is theoretically a good concept I just can't see it working in the real world where we have fair useage policies, limited bandwidth, contention ratios on phone lines and latency. Look at online games now, latency is the biggest single technical issue they grapple with, you expect that and even forgive them for it to a degree but you wouldn't tolerate that in normal single player games. This may work when you have your server and machines connected on a gigabit network but most people's broadband (at a guess) is probably in the 8 - 16 megabit range, which is far slower. Maybe when everyone is connected via optic fibre rather than the older copper line system and we have better services, until then I can't see it working properly.
And that's before we get to the problem of the servers the games are hosted on. Most servers are only built to crunch numbers and transmit/recieve data, there is no need for them to render graphics any more complex than their OS when the technician checks on them. This will put all of the graphics load onto them, not so bad when there's only a few connections but when you have hundreds or even thousands of people connected to each one the load on them will be enourmous. These servers will have to be all conquering monoliths of machines, and they'll be enourmously expensive, moreso than servers already are.
Like I said, its a good concept but that's all it seems to be, a concept, anyone who's ever worked in the technical side of IT could see the enormous problems this has to overcome before it could ever be a reality.
It is pirate proof. Everything is done on their end. You're not downloading or cracking anything ~ it's all done their.Darkong said:
You have an account.
You buy a product.
The product stays on their end.
You play the product from their computers at yours.
However, none of this will work like they want or think it will.
You're missing the point about the hack-proof comment. Of course someone will hack the server, or try to. They'll do it just out of spite of him saying that! The point is there's nothing to gain by it. There's no product to pirate so even if they hack they get nothing and eventually they get locked out, much like hacking the FBI website or Pentagon. Hackers might do it just to prove they can do it, but there is no real quantitative point to it.
I don't really get this OnLive thing, seems like the only people who could really take advantage of it are people with really nice internet connections and if they have really nice internet connections already then they already have a reason to need those really nice internet connections, which generally includes a gaming console or computer of some sort that they can already play games on.
I don't really get this OnLive thing, seems like the only people who could really take advantage of it are people with really nice internet connections and if they have really nice internet connections already then they already have a reason to need those really nice internet connections, which generally includes a gaming console or computer of some sort that they can already play games on.
True, but right now any idiot with a game and a copy of daemon tools can pirate a game. Even if there's all of two or three people who can hack their servers, the decrease in piracy would be massive.D_987 said:
You are actually downloading stuff since you're downloading the data generated on the server but my point was that a hacker (or cracker to use the actual term rather than the Hollywood coined one) will crack ther server, get a copy of the game data, crack it, compile it and distribute it, thus getting around the need to have an account.Credge said:
Exactly.Darkong said:
As to bandwidth, I feel inclined to make a "clogging my tubes" remark and a reference to the internet not being a big truck you can just throw stuff on.
Seems to me that this could work eventually, but I don't know about now. You would have to have a ridiculous amount of beastly hardware. While I would love to not have to buy a next gen console, I don't think this is going to be the Jesus of the gaming world, to use a thinly stretched analogy.
This article pretty much sums up my worries about onlive.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/gdc-why-onlive-cant-possibly-work-article
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/gdc-why-onlive-cant-possibly-work-article