OnLive’s streaming games service has been getting a lot of buzz since it debuted at Game Developers Conference 2009. While millions of gamers love the idea of games-on-demand, many are skeptical about cloud-based gaming. This is new, uncharted territory for gaming. With that in mind, I decided to ask the most dashing game designer east of the Mississippi a prominent game developer what he thought of OnLive. Here’s what Epic Games’ Cliff Bleszinski (Unreal, Gears of War) had to say:
I was skeptical about OnLive until I had a chance to be hands on with it at GDC, and it does appear to be the “real deal.” I think the PC space will benefit the most initially from this technology, however, I doubt Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are ready to yield to an on-demand cloud console quite yet.
What do you make of his comments? Does getting praise from a respected game designer like Cliffy B change your opinion of OnLive? I want to know what you’re thinking (pure energy)!
Mark my words, this OnLive thing is destined to fail. First off, Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft would easily have this on their consoles if it ever becomes popular or if there is a demand for it. If it comes down to the big three verses a rouge start-up for cloud gaming, put your money on the big three every time. They have experience and install base on their side.
Second, if you rule out the consoles, then that just leaves PC's. Again, fail. Steam and other popular PC gaming services (that I don't use) would also easily adapt this cloud model to their existing services killing OnLive's valiant attempt to convert PC gamers to PC cloud gamers.
Third, … er, well I had a third argument, but now I forgot what it was. Damn writers' block! Well, I'll just go with "it looks stoopid."
Yeah, take that upstart OnLive fanboys!!!
-M
Here is how it will go down:
MS, Sony and Nintendo will tell a publisher that games that appear on their machines can only be licensed to play on disc based consoles. The publisher consents because it has bills to pay. The PC market might not adopt this since the gamer doesn't have control over the game, something that is BIG with that community. OnLIve will fail because the publishers aren't going to NOT sell their software on the other 3 MAIN platforms.
2. Broadband availability. Pretty poor and where it is available, some speeds can't go over 1.5mbps. That isn't enough for HD gaming. Lord help you if you girlfriend starts to upload pictures to walgreens while you are playing Battlefield. (experience)
@Iceman Reason #3 is very compelling.
Ha, ha, yeah, I ran out of steam there at the end, Mr. Padilla. Luckily, Smartguy (true to his name) reminded me of my TRUE third argument, which was the bandwidth issue.
Not enough of it for sufficient cloud gaming.
That brings me to another question; how do you think the whole "net neutrality" issue is going to end up in Washington? The telecom lobbies are throwing MAD money (and crazy convoluted logic) at politicians to allow the bigwigs to control the bandwidth and content of their customers.
-M
@Iceman I have no idea how net neutrality is going to end up, but it's hugely important to us as gamers and Internet addicts. In addition to that, I use a lot of VoIP products for business and to keep in touch with family/friends in Asia. The issue is very important to me. Like you said, there's a ton of lobbying money being thrown around, so it'll be interesting to see how it all pans out.
I like their repurposed, recolored xbox controller with dvd remote attached to the bottom. I don't know enough about how their service is really going to work to tell you whether or not their going to fail, but I can see this going the way of the Jaguar/Turbographix16/Dreamcast. There is not enough of a need right now for yet another console, I a really dont hear the public clamoring for the "cloud."
I bet Microsoft buys them out.. Why, because Sony doesn't need it with a cloud computing project already in the works (supposedly) and Microsoft has a network set up that could integrate it more easily.
@Smartguy
I doubt Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft could unite against a common cause. Plus, Steam is owned by Valve who has close ties to EA, so getting the big publishers to agree to any kind of disc only contract is unlikely. EA would hold out so they could keep publishing rights to Valves games, which would in turn cause the other publishers to either hold off on the agreement or back out of it so as to keep a fair playing field. Bandwith is still a problem though.
@sandrock
Didn't say they have to produce a disc for a game. Just have to put the game on disc only systems. That would exclude the cloud machine…if you can even call it that.
Regardless, I don't see OnLive being a factor in the US within the next 10 or even 15 years. Broadband infrastructure is sparse and limited in speed in the market.
It's easy to think of the many ways OnLive can fail, but what about the other side of the coin? What would have to happen for it to succeed?
… I actually had some ideas but I was just talking to someone between this sentence and the one before it and now my fingers can't type the words. I got word blocked!
I think this is going to be great for PC gaming…as for console gaming…I think it would take a HUGE marketing campaign and booku bucks to take on the Big 3. It could be a great way for Mac people to play PC games without added software.
OnLive is not for everyone, but it will succeed because it's a good "long tail" move with broad applications. It's clearly not for hard core gamers that love their consoles and like owning games — it won't affect that market at all for several years. Some of the confusion is coming from the pictures of the OnLive console, which is not much more than an input device and really just an optional, incidental part of the system. Those pictures along with the press hyping it as a "console killer" imply that it is going head-to-head against console gaming, but its really a different animal.
First off, note that a bet against it for bandwidth or other technical reasons is a bet against Moore's Law. Not everyone has a fast/cheap/reliable enough connection yet, but I think there is already enough of a critical mass to get it going, and that base will grow exponentially. Also note that a concern about it overloading the internet infrastructure would be classified by OnLive as "good problem" to worry about.
OnLive (and other cloud based streaming platforms Gaikai, OTOY, Playcast) open up new opportunities:
1. Fast, open, development and distribution. Actually distribution kind of disappears. Imagine developing the game directly on the OnLive server, when you're ready you just tell people to play it. The same goes for updates, bug fixes, and mods. There's no downloading, you just use them as they become available. This opens up possibilities for a much more dynamic interaction between users and developers.
2. Device independence. I can play the exact same game on my iPhone, netbook, or TV. I could even pause it on one device and pick it up on another. The developer only needs special coding for the input differences, not for the CPU/GPU limitations of the device.
3. Virtually unlimited compute power. This will of course create opportunities for better graphics, but I think more important is the compute power for the game play itself — for example imagine smart characters that can take advantage of machine learning techniques. This combined with #1 even opens possibilities of smart games that can learn from one player and be applied to others.
4. Completes the convergence of computer and TV. Another way to think of OnLive is as the final word in interactive TV. Just for a stupid example, it could potentially be used as a way to interactively watch live concerts. Say a the Pusscat Dolls, or Black Eyed Peas, or whoever, have several Red cameras set up to stream to OnLive servers. Then the users can use the controller to select cameras and pan and zoom interactively. Like I said, stupid example, but I hope you get the idea that it opens up possibilities way beyond just gaming.
It doesn't take too much imagination to think up other possibilities as well. Granted — most will take some time to develop. But there are enough of them to make the success of OnLive a pretty good bet.
"First off, note that a bet against it for bandwidth or other technical reasons is a bet against Moore’s Law."
This is not true at all. Last time I checked, Intel and AMD weren't limiting, shaping, or capping their CPUs. It's not that technical side of bandwidth that anyone is concerned about. The cable and telephone companies have access to technology that could boost bandwidth in a huge way, but they're not interested in deploying those technologies.
That aside, Moore has already said that his law will be dead in a decade. :P
I would invest on OnLive. Day one buy for me.
That's pretty interesting @rbee90. Why are you sold on OnLive?
I signed up for the Beta… we'll see if I get on.
@rpad
i just think it has potential. I use LIVE's Games on demand service, ans steam's service as well. Although i may not be a fan of digital downloads, I just want to give it a shot. As part pc gamer/ part console(s) owner, i like to expand my gaming to new heights. I keep an open mind to new consoles for us consumers, no matter how bad the reviews get. I've been waiting for a new "thing" from the gaming industry for a long long time. if it does become a disappointment, i can wait until they make it better. We all know how sony played out the PS3, took them 3 years to get back, and they turned out fine. Even though they are at last place, i still respect them for giving their consumers good games and good times. So yeah, bottom line is, lets just wait and see on how OnLive turns out
Another thing that I see that could be a detriment for this is the cost to the consumer. So if you pay a sub fee, do you just get access to all the games? Will it be a tiered sub fee where tier3 gets the whole library as where tier1 and tier 2 do not?
Or will it allow you to purchase the "rights" to play a game on their server and not charge you a monthly fee for using the service?
Either way, I think both models are flawed.
@Smartguy
I'm all for digital games, but I still like to "own" my games. Having the “rights” to play a game on their server is not something I could ever get into for serious gaming. What happens when they go out of business, or get bought out? Do I lose those “rights"? Even if it was a monthly fee for unlimited access to all their games, I still wouldn't be interested. It just seems like a waist of money.