Network now...NEWS
Nvidia: OnLive a "Net Positive for Us"
One of the main benefits of the recently-announced cloud-based computing service OnLive is that users would not need to buy a pricey console or graphics card to play graphically-intensive games.
That would seem to put GPU companies like Nvidia (which specialize in graphics hardware) in a bind if OnLive can pull it off, but the graphics firm tells Edge that it sees business opportunities server-side.
Tony Tamasi, SVP of content and technology at Nvidia tells Edge, "...We think this is a good thing for the industry. Given the targeted resolution and image quality, it seems a good potential benefit for the 50 percent or so of the market currently stuck with sub-par integrated graphics."
OnLive's technology on the server-side will have to be robust, to say the least. The OnLive Game Service, due to launch this winter, is to run games such as Crysis and Unreal Engine 3-based games by sending and receiving game data in real time between users' computers and servers. These high-end games wouldn't be installed on the user's hard drive, and only modestly powerful machines (Mac or PC, or TV with a small "MicroConsole") will be required to play, along with a broadband connection.
"[OnLive's] server-side GPUs will want to be cutting edge, so it seems additive to today’s PC GPU business, much in the same way that servers have done for CPUs," Tamasi adds. "It also has the potential to open up some markets for high-end graphics that previously weren’t available.
"So overall, we view this as a net positive for us."
Contact Us / About Us / Advertise With Us / BeltwayBlips / TechBlips / MassiveBlips / GamerBlips / FAQ
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
In all honesty I don't think pc gaming it self would die. Why would I say that it's because of moders and indie game devs. However I do beleave that alot of pc gamers will move over to onlive. I know console gaming will be dead when onlive in the future for sure.
I really didn't give much credence to the viability of OnLive until I read this article. The fact that nVidia has to spin this news leads me to believe that they've already analyzed cloud computing and realized that it will work for gaming. Otherwise, why even acknowledge it? The fact that nVidia is already talking about migrating their business model to server-side cards seems significant.
Good point.
Seems they might just pull this off, impossible as it seems. If it does work I know I'll be a customer for sure and I don't think there are many people who would say no. This could rock the boat for quite a few people...
Frankly, I don't see OnLive benefiting Nvidia, ATI, Intel, AMD or any other performance PC hardware companies at all. If OnLive flies, however, I can see a sales explosion of entry-level laptops and desktops and gigabyte-level broadband subscriptions.
I bet even OnLive can't get Fallout3 to run without it crashing.
Think of the positives though - "casual" and "retired" gamers might actually start to buy/rent/play enthusiast titles because - it might turn out - it was only the technical fiddling about and the extra expense that was keeping them away.
It does make one ponder about the feasability of it all. Cloud computing has been done before with less demanding applications like word processing and spreadsheets and some flash-based 3D action games. But to throw megabytes of Fallout 3 or Mirror's Edge data back and forth across the web in real time is something else.
I'll finally manage to play Crysis!
Thinly veiled damage control, I reckon. If OnLive doesn't shit the bed, nVidia are skewered.
Yeah... look at his smile. He's even sweating a little.
Just out of shot a shareholder is lubing him up.
I cannot understand for the life of me how they are going to make OnLive work. Say, you have 1000 players running Mirror's Edge simultaneously (that's a very conservative number, it could be millions). Obviously, they would have to render individual image for each player and and be super-fast in converting the image to hi-def video (again, for EACH player). Needless to say, it would consume a great deal of processing power. What kind of GPU is that?
This will either revolutionize the industry or flop completely. The chance of success is somewhat thin in my view.
.
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/03/27/nvidia_countersues_intel/
This links to a pretty interesting news article over a lawsuit between Intel and nVidia. nVidia is concerned that Intel posed a fake partnership, the motive being to steal nVidia's GPU secrets. Intel may use that knowledge to monopolize the 3D graphics market by eliminating the need for a 3D graphics card.
But, wouldn't a project like this be against Intel's best interests? OnLive is attempting to eliminate the need for a new CPU or motherboard at all, isn't it?
My concern about OnLive is how good will the resolution be on the MicroConsole? And will lag affect mouse aiming? Nothing sucks more than having a delay every time you aim with the mouse.
On the contrary, in an effort to always provide the latest games, the Onlive service will upgrade faster than the user would normally. It does not matter if the CUSTOMER does not need to upgrade. The PROVIDER has to upgrade and far more aggressively so if he wants to retain an edge. A consumer upgrades maybe once every two years, but which consumer is going to wait that long for the new id game to appear on Onlive.
Since the users are generated by offering them to pay LESS per month than they would with a normal rig, most of the costs will have to be paid upfront by Onlive, then earned back over time. Companies need credits for that and the current economic climate is not that good for huge risks taken by investors. Let's say the service costs $15 per month and then some small fees, then that's $720+ in four years. If Onlive becomes a threat, Sony and MS will try to attack them with similar ideas, such as renting your console, leasing, or financing it. Onlive is a Hardware platform provider like any other. It will have the same problems.
On the topic of nVidia:
Onlive said, they were constructing their own special server rigs with GPUs built into them. I doubt they are using nVidia though. Else nv would not say they look forward to Onlive's increase in demand, they would say "nVidia now happily supplies the Onlive service with hardware". So my guess is, ATI got the deal, especially since they got the CPU hardware too.
Right now, HW is sold by what the customer knows he needs. Cloud computing will sell HW like crazy because it is then sold to cloud providers with lofty ideas about a demand that most likely is not there. Keeps demand up, keeps prices up, HW industry wins.
I don't know a heck of a lot about PC gaming but I think this guy is just trying to spin this for the share holders. If this service really takes over then they're toast.
This guy's argument is based on them providing GPU for OnLive. Unless I see some sort of contract between the two companies this makes no sense.