FAO Ash Law

[kingandy]

Re recent discussion:

"OnLive is pretty much the belle of the ball at GDC thus far, and its promise of rapture must be pure exhilaration to anyone who has never worked IT. ... What I'm saying is that server-side solutions invariably lead to sinister necromantic cabals."

- Tycho Brahe, Penny Arcade

The main reason I remain sceptical of the OnLive Project is the question of data transfer. Yes, all the crunchy graphics churning goes on at the far end of a cable, but you can't just look down the cable to see it. Every piece of the screen has to be sent down that cable. One could make the case that we have live TV streaming down cables these days (and certainly this would make more sense for a cable or ADSL connection than, say, "mobile broadband"), but I'm not convinced that a TV signal (even a high-def one) is potentially the same standard as a DVI monitor connection. Most likely they'd involve some manner of encryption/decryption and the concordant drop in quality. I'm sure they've factored it all into their development process but I'm still of the mind that this is simply a waste of bandwidth.

Most M'MORP'G's could, in theory, work in this way but they don't. In fact they go out of their way to reduce the data footprint as much as possible. They send information about control inputs up to the server, the server moves the pieces and sends a packet back describing the position of everybody else in the area - and then the local machine renders all the fluffy clouds and whatnot. Yes, this means that people with a lower-spec machine get an inferior experience (with all the graphical options turned off), but it also means that people with a lower-spec connection can play the game.

Also - the thought occurs that the more successful the service is, the worse it will actually be, as the demands on the available rendering power rises. I'm sure they've factored that in too - and clearly they will expand their server farm as and when - but still, you're at their mercy. Further, you're completely reliant on their server - and your internet connection - for your gaming experience. Naturally the same complaint applies to the M'Morp'g', but not every game is a M'Morp'g' and it's always good to have a game or two that you can play when the phone line dies.

As a caveat, this is based entirely on my understanding of the basic concept; I've not even read the spec. These are simply musings on the technological problems which will be encountered.

Comments

[ash1977law.livejournal.com]

So far they are only going live in countries that have the infrastructure capable of handling the type of data transfer their service requires (not Britain). The difference between network capabilities in the US and the UK are quite staggering.

[invisible-al.livejournal.com]

Have you seen the stats for broadband penetration in the US? The UK may be lagging but the majority of the US is worse off than us. And of course we all bow down to the mighty Koreans who live in a land where the streets are made of fibre :).

[stsquad.livejournal.com]

Indeed. While I'm at it I can point out how bad it is in Oz. We have caps in the UK, just not the same sort of scale as Oz where exceeding your cap can run up a $300 bill in a month.

[stsquad.livejournal.com]

It remains an interesting concept. Eventually bandwidth availability
will reach the point where interactive HD on demand will be standard
for 90% of the urban population. There is a lot of benefit in being in
on the ground floor when games switch from one-off purchases to the
Software as a Service model.