Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 16 Jun 2011.
How can he keep pulling stuff like this out of his arse?
Speaking as a network Engineer, if he expects lag free gaming over standard DSL, he has another thing coming.
Testing on my netbook with it next to the router.
lol that entire article is just BS
hey MR perlman - it doesnt work and when it does its crap. Its not about maximum performance just a game that looks good on a average broadband line. If you can achieve this then maybe you got a decent product
all this as well as paying for stuff you dont own simply rent from onlive.
We don't have that problem! *coughcoughsplutter*wehavedifferentones*coughcough*
I'm confused, I get how PC games could theoretically run faster, because you have insane amounts of power behind it, but surely 360/ps3 games are stilll being run off of 360s/ps3s, unless they cut some interesting deals in Sony/MS.
Your in UK right? And the UK servers haven't been installed yet, so you would be routing through to America and back (possibly twice if your online game server your playing on is in the UK which the USA OnLive servers would have to communicate with), which even on your own PC would typically net 100+ ping for the distance alone.
Just thought I'd point it out, not really fair to comment on its performance when we don't have servers in our own country yet.
I think he's just comparing a PC game running on OnLive compared to a PS3/360 game running natively and naturally with powerful PC hardware the framerate and such can be much higher.
if this is the case then why have the released the product !!!!
you cant release it then when people complain say well we haven't got the infrastructure yet so don't judge us.
basically it was released too soon and its rubbish so onlive have taken your cash now they must take the flac too. you cant have it both ways
True that. Until broadband speeds get sorted in the UK will this ever really be possible? Would be interested to see what hardware they are running on their "2011" servers..
Obviously your ISP sucks, if your paying for standard internet which i am assuming, you should be pay for 15Mb Down and at least 2 up. You need to check your internet speed on speakeasy.net to make sure your isp isn't ganking you out of your money 9 times out of 10 they most likely are thats why your getting those results. I haven't experienced any lag what so ever when using the service.
How can you say that, have you even tried the service yet, probably not. It amazes me that you people talk crap about something without even trying it first. And on top of that you guys are not reading the article properly to understand the difference between pre-render queues and internet algorithms. Do me a favor and do more research about what being said in the article before you say anything.
I still think OnLive are missing out on a massive opportunity by not partnering or licensing out their technology to set-top box manufacturers.
Instead of promoting their services to gamers who already own 1-3+ superior gaming systems, they should get their tech built into Sky/Freeview/Cable boxes, hotel televisions, Boxee/Roku etc.
Don't see why they're insisting on targeting 'us' when they should be positioning themselves as the logical next step for casual or new gamers. Added bonus being that the types of games that sell well in those markets aren't usually susceptible to high latency, unlike FPS/racing games etc.
My god this company talks a lot of ****...
They have haven't they? I remember reading somewhere recently about the next lot of a particular manufacturer's net-enabled TVs (maybe Samsung?) would have on-line built into it.
Technically they havn't released onlive yet in the UK. We can however login to Onlive (.com) and play games presumably through servers located somewhere else in the world.
The system "works" but ultimately due to its design lag will never dissapear. The simple fact is that each and every keystroke you make has to go much further (thus inducing more ping or "lag") than if you were playing the same game locally.
I have messed around on quite a few of the 30 minute free trials they offer and the system works but the lag is very prominent. Perhaps on a controller sat in front of a TV it will be more tolerable but I don't see how it can ever have less lag than a console.
For reference - whenever I say "lag" I mean the time between you pressing a button and the action happening.
Tbh, I think Onlive is trying to be the solution to a problem that doesn't exist . I mean, to function at its full potential and be viable, it'd need everyone to have superfast South korean type connections. But if someone's paying for a top quality superfast high Mb/s fibre connection, why couldn't they afford an Xbox, mid range PC or PS3 or any future equivalent?
And it's difficult to believe that their centralised HW will be constantly updated to keep pace with new tech. Certainly not better than a current mid range PC. Otherwise it'd become prohibitively expensive for the Onlive user. In fact, I think it'd be seriously bad for graphical progress if this caught on, as the pressure would be on to milk any existing infrastructure for years and years.
I think a lot of people discount OnLive before even properly trying it. And what I mean by properly trying it is, trying it in an area where it is officially released.
As for me, I'm a 360 and PC gamer. I've also become an avid OnLive player within the last two months, even though I've been a member for a year. There are lots of benefits to OnLive. No need to update your computer or buy another console is definitely a huge one. Being able to play games anywhere you go, whether on a netbook, PC, or TV is another one.
As for lag, I don't think Perlman is too far off base. I've played Halo and Call of Duty on the 360 with more lag than what OnLive offers with Homefront. As for single player games, what he is talking about in the above interview totally makes sense.
Trust me, it works. I've seen people run it with 5/mbs speeds easily. I was playing on a hospital wi-fi with my netbook. Perlman was showing how it runs on a tablet over 4G. I've seen many network administrators scratch their head at the vodoo/magic that OnLive is working. It doesn't make sense, but it does work.
Just on this point I think you're confusing the issues of latency and bandwidth in respect to superfast connections. Bandwidth is a measure of how much data can be delivered between server and client in a given period. Latency is how long it takes for any single piece of data to make that journey.
If you want to know whether your connection is 'fast' enough in terms of pure bandwidth, just head over to youtube and play a 1080p video. If you can do so without it constantly buffering your connection will be 'fast' enough for onlive.
Of course, latency is a whole other issue. To test that -- if you can play online games on UK servers without noticing any 'lag' then your connection is probably 'fast' enough to play onlive.
Personally I can do both and I suspect most people on 8MB+ (possibly lower, no idea how their compression tech works) wired internet connections will find the same. Sure upstream is always lower, but all you'll be sending to the onlive servers is key inputs, and when I click 'submit reply' at the bottom of this post and it instantly shows me the resulting post I'll have used my upstream to send more 'input characters' at once than any game will ever need to with onlive.
I'm still sceptical about it's practicality for many reasons (some of which you also raised) but I don't think in fairness the problem will be the bandwidth of the connection. XD
He could actually be right. A typical 30fps console game has an input lag of 150ms.
With a network lag of 50ms*2 +50ms for processing you've got the same lag as a console.
Separate names with a comma.