0/10

>This is going to kill gaming.

Fixed that for you, OP.

IT EXISTS I TELL YOU

JUST LIKE WITCHES

>implying pc gaymen isnt already dead

lol, streaman gaems

>>6645395

OVER HEAD COSTS

induring a shitty trolling faggot.

I feel sorry for the people who actually think this is going to work out. The technologically ignorant.

>>6645402
The cost/month will be a little more expensive than Xbox live and cheaper than MMOs.

PING TIMES

>>6645407
What are you talking about? The overhead is completely on the Company and not the user. If we can stream HD videos over youtube, then why is this not possible? It's not like Plan 9 servers are that hard...

inb4
>compression

anybody have the "35 minutes ago" graph of OnLive?

>>6645520
If the overhead on the company is so high that the only way they can turn a profit is to charge people far more money than makes sense given the proven alternatives then the company will not stay in business

or put simply, if OnLive costs more than 30 bucks a month the only demographic it serves is the one that is incredibly bad at math.

Didn't Atari or someone try this in the 80s? Didn't it fail miserably because people like to actually own the things they pay for?

>>6645353
I am twelve years old, and what is this?

>>6645521
>median US connection is 1.9
>implying that people can't/won't upgrade in order to play
>implying that that's the connection speed for the average gamer today

How is this different from streaming HD video from the user perspective, other than the upload speed.

>>6645555
>people like to actually own the things they pay for

I don't know about that, plenty of people pay real money for virtual items and characters.

>>6645555
People also like to not pay for things...

Streaming games is destined to fail horribly considering how fucking slow internet bandwidth in America is.

Keep your ultra-compressed video and audio bullshit away from me.

>>6645588
You do realize that YouTube HD (one of the most popular websites on the internet) is laggy as shity half the time, right?

There's a reason the videos are only 10 minutes long.

>>6645588
>How is this different from streaming HD video from the user perspective, other than the upload speed.

IT
HAPPENS
IN
REAL
TIME
YOU
STUPID
CUNT

This is the whole reason why OnLive is a fantasy. YouTube streams pre-recorded video at less than the quality OnLive promises and they have massive server farms processing frames continuously and they still can't keep up.

OnLive cannot be preprocessed
OnLive cannot be buffered
OnLive can't even be compressed because the compression and decompression would take too long and lag out the game with current technologies

>>6645588
PING TIMES. Your own actions have to be streamed back to you, the input->action delay means no one would use this.

>>6645620
Pretty much this. If you have a connection powerful enough to stream videogames, why the fuck wouldn't you just download the game onto your computer and play it through a service like STEAM?

I download my games at 3MB/s off of them and can play them whenever the fuck I want. Streaming is fucking fail.

Not a single tachyons yet? I am disappoint.

>>6645644
BUT TRACHYONS

>>6645521
anyone who falls for that troll picture is more retarded than technologically impaired duck

lol

vapourware is vapor

>>6645644
It uses hardware compression/decompression you retard. They're not using consumer level shit like googletube; they're going to use massive farms throughout the EEUU.

Ahahaha
Ahahahaha
Aahahahahah.
Just... wow, try harder bro, try harder.

Hey geniuses, the bandwidth is not a problem.
and guess what
The ping is not a problem either. I remember playing Counter Strike in the 56K era with no problems.

>>6645718
hahahahaha
hahahahaha

hahahaha

oh wow

10/10

>this thread

What the fuck? Okay, fine, they have some cool new different system of delivering content. What about the GAMES, though? Aside from colossal lag and low quality, what will be new and different?

>>6645756
hahahahaha

you too?

lol 10/10

>>6645786
Elaborate please
i know you won't
what is the problem, bandwidth or ping?

>>6645718
.....
you cant use hardware decompression on a pc

If I want to watch streamed gameplay, I watch let's plays
God damn it,

>>6645521
>to transmit 720p of video at 60fps you need 105MB of data per second
>implying a 90 minutes movie takes 533 GB
JESUS FUCK ARE YOU RETARDED

>>6645860

Movies don't play at 60 frames per second you dipshit.

>>6645860
>completely missing his point
>not understanding basic compression technology

>>6645846
>movies run at 60 FPS
>movies aren't compressed
greentext can't hide how ignorant you are brah

>>6645883
>>6645891
EXACTLY MY POINT
Movies are compressed and so is onLive. A second of stream DOESN'T NEED 105MB
>>6645877
fine, replace 533GB for 222GB

>>6645860
Movies only play at 24 (NTSC) or 25 (PAL) fps.

shitty head

>>6645920
HURRA FOR SHIIIIIIIIIITY GRAPHICS
why bother playing the game if its going to look like shit.

And if you want to have good quality video, then you need to use good compression algorithms that will take a lot of power and still eat a lot of bandwidth, THUS DEFEATING THE PURPOSE

>>6645694
>>6645727
>>6645763
>>6645786
>>6645922
i just love when faggots make posts like this and when you ask for details they disappear

>>6645756
You just don't get it, do you? When you have a game installed locally, your commands are still registered locally. The difference is, the server gets to decide when those reactions are calculated and carried out.

With OnLive, EVERYTHING has to be sent to the server, then back to you. Even the visuals. You'll wish you could play on a 56k connection after OnLive rapes you.

>>6645776

>>6645776
>>6645776
Crysis has been announced already;I cbc with finding the article. I'm pretty sure it's on the onlive site.
>>6645776
>>6645353

You would need a 1 megabyte/sec connection to pull this off.

Most connections are 200-300 kilobyte/s

Idiots forget that internet speed are in bits not bytes. This would never work.

>>6646079
>>6646079
[Citation Needed]

>>6645920
Movies use lossy compression and low framerates, neither of which is suitable for gaming.

Lossless compression and high framerates are going to need too much bandwidth to be practical.

>>6646099
Is there any subject of technology that you know anything about? Serious question.

>>6645984
i wasn't saying i could play onlive with 56K (not enough bandwidth to stream), i was talking about the ping
having to transmit more data won't change the ping

>>6646105
>>6646105
Explain. Why would lossy compression not work?

Useless faggot troll should stop posting useless faggot troll threads.

You have contributed nothing positive to this thread in a the few months you've been here.

Just dig up old trolling subjects that have been done 1000 times.

>>6646126
If the ping has to transmit more data, then it will take longer to make the trip.

>>6646079
are you trolling?
measuring the speed on BITS per second is the standard. It has been probably before computers

http://www.onlive.com/partners.html

>>NVIDIA
>>1.7
>>WOOD SCREWS

>>6646119
>>6646119
I know how to troll /g/. I was actualy asking where you got the 8mbps number from, but your logical fallacy proves that you pulled it out of your ass.

You can't stream Youtube HD on a 2mb/s connection.

I know because I try. If I can't stream a video without buffering at a resolution much lower than what OnLive promises, how the hell can I expect to believe this?

Why is everyone so excited about this anyways? Is a $96 HD4850 too expensive for everyone to afford? It's cheaper in the long run than paying for this service and will let you play any game at higher resolutions than OnLive could ever hope.

InB4 but...but....Netbooks!

An Atom can barely handle displaying ANY video at all above 640x480. It doesn't matter how much you compress it, anything less than a desktop or high end laptop is going to chug trying to play this.

>>6645353
>ChargersTech !LinuxkdHm.!!j8xsgbo3nlL
>ChargersTech !LinuxkdHm
>!LinuxkdHm
>Linux
>PC Gaming

>>6646137
Because modern games have too much detail and 3D video is less resilient to data loss than than 2D.

>>6646186
I'm not the guy you referred to. I'm just seeing you post all over /g/ and you're probably the most ill-informed tripfag I've ever seen on /g/. It's like everything everyone ever told you about technology was opposite.

>>6646079
1 megaBIT for lowQ
5 megaBIT for HQ

Enjoy your ping times.

>>6646210
c'mon, give it the right kind of compression artifacts and you've got free AA

Hey haters, instead of raging and bitching so much as if we lived in a communist country and you were forced to choose onLive; why don't we just wait until this is released?
If you were right and on Live doesn't work then don't buy it and watch it go down.
Seriously, everytime someone mentions on live everyone starts raging as if coasted your taxes's money or something

>>6646191
>If I can't stream a video without buffering at a resolution much lower than what OnLive promises, how the hell can I expect to believe this?
Don't forget the framerate. Not only is YT not streaming at 720p, they're not streaming at anything close to 60fps, either.

>>6646256
>>6646256
>>6646256
AA is for casuals.

>>6646256
I lol'd

The whole purpose of OnLive is to build up enough investor interest so that the company can be sold, leaving the founders rich, and the buyers with a worthless technology company and a product that is doomed to failure.

>clouds, consoles, services, subscriptions, centralization, government

This is going to kill PC gaming.

>>6646313
MWAHAHAHA

>>6646306
That's Web 2.0 for you.

Seems a lot like Web 1.0 if you ask me.

>>6645353
>This is going to kill gaming
fixt

Won't work. Probably not ever for anything more complicated than Wii, which defeats the purpose. The bandwidth requirements are ridiculous, and the latency would make most FPSs unplayable.

The only way I could see this working is in an internet cafe setting, with one central server running the games, and direct links to the client boxes.

>>6646224
So.

128kb/s for low quality.

128kb/60 (60fps)=2.13kb PER FRAME

Let's be modest and say you'll play at 30fps on low. You now get 4.26 kilobytes per frame. Let's say you play at gowdawful resolutions.

Does this look good to anyone? A lossy .jpeg of normal quality is 79k. This is what it looks like at 5k.

>>6646313
>>6646313
It's been dead ever since xbox live and halo, bro. The low end gpus were the last straw. Flash games and MMOs are really the whole reason that the industry is even still around.

>>6646371
Ahh, it's like I'm playing Doom all over again!

>>6646371
This is why it is impossible.

Something a normal person would consider to be "low quality" would require that 5mbps speed.

1mbps would return something that looks like a retard captured on his cell phone then uploaded to Youtube.

BLIZZARS SHOULDERING THE PC GAYMAN INDUSTRY

>>6646383
>Implying Diablo III isn't hotly anticipated.

I don't play many games, Counter Strike Condition Zero being the newest PC game I've played for more than 4 hours. Hence, I don't care much about this OnLive and whether it works or not but:

>>6645978
>why bother playing the game if its going to look like shit.

Is this the state of PC gaming today? Graphics are the sole reason for playing? What happened to solid gameplay, good plots and all that stuff that _used to_ decided whether a game is good? And it's not just him, I see many people on /g/ hyping hte latest 58_0 graphics cards or what have you. Is such obsessive hardware purchases necessary? You guys are just torrenting Crysis to justify spending lots of money.

>>6646371
Even a Netbook with ION can play L4D at a higher resolution with better detail than that.

OnLive has already been replaced. It got replaced by Moore's goddamn Law. Hardware has always been fast enough, but even the cheapest shit available has caught up to low end gaming.

>>6645353

>implying I don't have a fast enough PC to vidya without having to buy into a shitty subscription service that will do it for me.

>>6646430
>implying that it was as anticipated as the latest xbox 360 exclusives.

Inafter gaming thread hijack

>>6646371
have you ever heard about something called
VIDEO COMPRESSION

>>6646435
There has NEVER been a videogame with a plot better than a C-list Hollywood action movie.

Graphics and gameplay are all that matter. Gameplay can be greatly improved by game physics and detail, which is what "graphics" actually means.

Great detail makes games more immersive and believable while also allowing for different methods of artistic expression.

I may also be one of the few people that thought Crysis had amazing gameplay that was afforded because of it's lush vegetation and huge environments, both things that you think are just "graphics".

>>6646371
you're on the right track there, but they don't need to send the whole image, only the diffs between each frame.
But if you lag out...holy shit it's like I'm playing games on VLC!

>>6646371
>>6646412
>>6646443
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE DOING ON A TECHNOLOGY BOARD
THE VIDEO IS COMPRESSED, IT'S NOT A SERIES OF INDEPENDENT PICTURES

>>6646435
As someone who's first game system was a ColecoVision, I partly agree. However there's a difference, IMO, between primitive graphics and shitty graphics. There's nothing necessarily wrong with primitive graphics (I play roguelikes with ASCII graphics regularly), but they don't have a lot of mass market appeal. There IS something wrong with graphics that are poorly designed, though.

>>6646490
Videogames do not play like Video does though.

Each frame has to be calculated individually all the way through.

Video compression improves on image compression by looking at the overall file and saying "hey, this block of grey pixels is here for 15 frames, I can compress that for 15 frames". Since a game is fluidly moving, compression can't determine if that block of pixels will always be there, so it has to compress each frame one at a time.

>>6646536
This. Not to mention that 3D is MUCH more difficult to compress well.

>>6646522
>>6646490
They can only send it as a solid video stream for so many frames before you get weird tearing and crazy shit.

Maybe they could pull off sending 5 frames at once compressed in a manner similar to video, but that would cause insane control lag on your end, since you would be stuck with 5 canned frames of motion before OnLive can do 5 more frames with your input.

>>6646443
>>6646443
>>6646443
>implying that something made by nvidia can play a
game.>>6646435
It's like on 420chan when people fap over their bongs, even though a bong has a lower THC:carcinogen ratio than a joint does.

>>6646536
Your computer won't do any of that
Onlive servers will do that
and the'll send it compressed for you
AS IF IT WAS VIDEO
YES, IT CAN BE COMPRESSED

>>6646472
>Implying that it won't be by the time it actually releases.

>>6646564
>Not to mention that 3D is MUCH more difficult to compress well
>implying they'll send you compressed 3d video somehow
OK, that's it, im out of this thread

>>6646536
This. Video compression takes a look at the file as a whole to decide where it can trim down the raw data to little chunks. It can look back and forth to find similar chunks of data to compress all together.

When you have something that needs constant input like a videogame, you can't look forwards since the inputs are always changing. This reduces the amount of available compression like crazy.

It would be a tiny bit better than using picture compression on each frame, but not by much.

You know what I find strange? How they held a public beta test, but you never hear any information, leaked or otherwise, about how that beta test went. You'd figure at least a handful of beta testers would have discussed it anonymously on some forums somewhere, or in a blog, or hell, on /v/. But all we've got is silence.

>>6646564
Screens are 2D. Reality, the source of most films, are 3D.

>>6646612
>Implying they won't have to if the games are going to utilize 3D.

Forget about the compression. Even if you had one of those Japanese 1 gigabit per second connections this shit still wouldn't work. Why? Latency. I think at one time they even said you would only be able to play with people in your local area (west cost, east cost, central, etc).

>>6646536

This doesn't mean much in technical terms. It only means that you can't use bi-directional prediction (i.e. B-frames), but *most* video doesn't use B-frames anyway. P-frames still work fine because you have the data of the previous frames.

people, at least watch the conference before talking about something you don't even know what it is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGdecNDDr9g

>>6646636
But films only use 2D video, whereas most popular games use 3D.

>>6646649
so, riddle me this
unrelated to onLive:
you record a video of a videogame using fraps or anything similar because you want to upload a video of crysis to youtube
then you realize you need to compress the video to upload it to youtube
according to your logic, is the video going to have to be compressed in 3D because it's a video of gameplay of a videogame in 3D?

>>6646668
You only see 2D.

But yes, it won't work with 3d display style shit.

Other than that, it won't work period because I'm not fucking playing games in 90% compression with 6x latency.
I have a fucking gaming pc so I can avoid horrible fucking quality like consoles.

>>6646692
No, because on YT I don't need to interact with it.

>>6646632
>>6646632
Oh god.

You idiots are about to make me gay porn dump sagebomb my own thread.

You have to seek information. You not googling "onlive beta" is the equivalent of a fat neckbeard complaining about how women Arent beating down the door to his basement lair.

>>6646668
no, games render a 3D environment and then display a 2D picture on your screen.

>>6646705
Those 3D displays are the future of gaming (though they're not mature tech yet).

>>6646668

The source material is irrelevant. Video is video. A "3d game" only describes how the video is generated. It makes almost no difference when compressing the data as video. I say "almost" because things like aliasing play a role in compression efficiency.

>>6646713
I did google "onlive beta". All I got were a bunch of results back of gaming news sites announcing that the OnLive Beta started in September, not any actual news of how it went or was perceived by the testers. That, and a bunch of old forum posts about people discussing how to get into the beta.

>>6646708
Onlive server renders the image the same way your computer would
Onlive server compresses the video according to the previous frames
they stream the data to you

There is no 3d compression as someone called it.

Or think of livestream if you don't believe me. you can go to livestream and see someone playing any game live. The video codecs are the same.

>>6646564
Tell me you're fucking joking...

>make PC gaming significantly easier
>going to kill PC gaming
...what?

>>6646788
>livestream
that's like 400x300 resolution with lots of compression artifacts, audio de-syncing, and lots of lag and latency. sometimes, I end up being 20 seconds behind what people who just joined the channel are viewing.

if it's anything like livestream, it won't work.

TACHYONS! TACHYONS! TACHYONS! TACHYONS!

>>6646822
>that's like 400x300 resolution with lots of compression artifacts, audio de-syncing, and lots of lag and latency. sometimes, I end up being 20 seconds behind what people who just joined the channel are viewing.
ARE 12 YEARS OLD?
WOULD YOU READ THE POSTS BEFORE REPLYING?
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE QUALITY, I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO YOU THAT THE COMPRESSION IS THE SAME REGARDLESS OF THE SOURCE

>>6646850
okay, the compression is the same... the technology and codecs exist.

it's shit quality, and only casuals on netbooks or old NTSC television sets will possibly enjoy it.

>>6646850
>trying to reason with anyone on 4chan

anyways; if OnLive is gonna do anything, its gonna kill off the modding community, enjoy paying 10$ for new maps or textures

>>6646822
it's shitty like that regardless of what you're doing, at least when the system is under the same kind of stress. Claiming that someone saying there's something special about compressing 3d gaming is a fucking moron doesn't mean that one is claiming that OnLive actually works.

>>6646885
games like modern warfare 2 without dedicated servers is going to kill mods

This is going to kill OnLive gaming.

Also, 25fps = Diablo 2

>>6646906

Infinity Ward is finished

onlive, and gaikai--a similar service, are both jokes. microsoft and sony are just waiting for them to fail in a big ball of fire and smoke, and then they'll unleash their next gen consoles.

>Compression
They have to use some form of compression, end of discussion. (Assuming OnLive will ever go live, which it won't...)
>Serverside CPU/GPU capacity
I think they could do this, I mean, just build a larger server farm. (Assuming OnLive will ever go live, which it won't...)
>Acceptable latency
No way in hell, not happening. Wanna try it? Set up a KVM program with remote display capability on your desktop, and try to play a game from your laptop client, even on a Gb LAN. See how that works out for you. The input lag would be horrible.

I just realized onlive wouldn't have much of a problem doing psudo 3d video like with the polarized glasses.
Well, much of a problem being it would only have to send 2 screens, one for each eye. So double the transfer quantity.
This idea is just lol levels of bad.

onlive is owned by DR MANHATTAN, THE MOST BADASS BLUE GUY EVER!

lol Tachyons.

Another thing people don't seem to understand in regards to OnLive is INPUT lag.

In typical online gaming, there is latency, sometimes >300ms. However, the game still "feels right", because if you fire a weapon, or jump, your client running on your rig responds instantly. There is no delay from the time you press fire, and your gun fires. The other people playing see you jump 300ms later, but that's ok. (as far as playability is concerned)

With Onlive, you press jump, fire, etc, wait 300ms, and THEN see your character jump, fire, etc. Press butan > send to Online > Render (at Online) > Compress Video > send to client > Decompress Video > Fire.

>>6647082
What happened to all the awesome flowcharts with TACHYONS that were floating around when OnLive first got announced?

>>6645393
>implying PC gaming can actually die
People will always want games with their computers, period.

This is stupid. Anyone with a brain and see the proper applications for this. It's not a full length single player game. Maybe an online shooter at best.

>>6647399
whatthefuckamireading.jpg

>>6645654
Because this is designed to work on computers that have no hope of running said games in the first place, chucklefuck.
That's the whole point of this bullshit.

>>6646885
XBL already does that.

>>6647787
They also have a miniconsole. TBH, I'd rather use that than a computer.