OnLive Patents Cloud-Based PC Gaming
This could could be a sign of bad times to come for hardware manufacturers and retailers.
Tuesday OnLive chief executive Steve Perlman said in an interview that the company was finally granted a patent last week covering the invention of cloud-based video games-- U.S. Patent No. 7,849,491.
Listed as the inventor, Perlman originally filed for the patent back in December 2002 just after he began working on what eventually became the current OnLive streaming service launched earlier this year. It covers a "breakthrough" technology that streams "high-twitch action" videogames from remote servers in data centers using a compression unit, and a transceiver to transmit compressed game video to players with broadband-connected HDTVs, PCs, Macs or mobile devices.
Although the new patent could be a big turning point for gamers, hardware manufacturers and retailers could see it as a major threat. Theoretically consumers would no longer need to purchase games in brick-and-mortar stores and online e-tailers like Steam and Gamer's Gate, as titles can be rented and purchased through the OnLive service.
The patent could also possibly eliminate the need for purchasing a new console or upgrading PC components to run the latest title. Instead, OnLive users would only need minimal hardware to play games that would normally require high-end hardware to run. Eventually OnLive will extend its streaming games to mobile applications like the iPad and Android-based devices.
"This is an industry-changing patent," Perlman told the Wall Street Journal. He added that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office didn't start examining his patent application until five years after it was first submitted because the agency is dealing with a massive backlog of patent applications.
So what does the new patent mean for rivals Gaikai and Otoy? OnLive may be in a position to sue the two networks for patent infringement. According to VentureBeat, Perlman declined to comment on the company's intentions, but seemed willing to work out an agreement. OnLive investors-- including Warner Bros, Autodesk, AT&T and more-- may choose differently.
Earlier this month OnLive launched a $99 dedicated "console" that receives the cloud-based gaming service for digital and analog TVs. As of this writing, an iPad "viewer" is available to download and install, allowing owners to spectate OnLive gaming sessions-- the android version is currently in beta.
OnLive is expected to launch a movie streaming service next year using the same cloud-based network it uses to deliver high-quality, high-performance games.
I'm hoping this guy got a patent on the technology he uses to handle running PC games on server architectures, mass rendering, and streaming of that content in real time, and not simply the concept of "Allowing people to play games online", which would be B.S. itself. As for suing other companies offering the same service, that's a bad idea. Not only are they not worth anything, you want to grow the market, not shrink it. Merge with those companies rather than eliminate. You need their customer base.
It's like Serius/XM. There weren't enough subscribers for 2 satellite radio companies, so merge into one. There aren't enough customers for streaming video games, so merge into one.
I think the traditional game supply chain can sleep easy for the time being.
This patent is only valid in the USA.
Good point, and if the average internet speed gets any faster how much do you think the game sellers have to pay to cough cough stifle the competition. (Look at Comcast and BitTorrent)
But now OnLive has to also be carefull on how it handles that patent. If the gaming ecosystem they are about to create is too proprietary, very few developers will risk making software for it because they may fear OnLive will eat their lunch in the future (think Microsft with office applications in the 90's). On the other hand, if they make an open standard, and license the patent to the competition (like Intel to AMD), they may be able to grow a new computer sector.
With only passing knowledge of the patent, I think the patent has a ground to stand on. I've though about the approach myself (from the Grid Computing perspective) about 3 years ago, but certainly did not have the confidence to pursue it. Pursuing something instead of just think about it, in the end, should and is worth money.
their recent new payment plan tells me they are suffering... but if they penetrate the tablet market, its freakin over, they're gonna rule the competition
this guy deserves a patent, but here let me chime in on this one
"Using 3,4,5,6 7 Fingers for multi-touch tracking"
if there is a company that developed a way to use more than 2 fingers, and they want a patent on that tech, than they also deserve it, because if they make the tech, and it works should they allow others to have what they made for free? no, they should licences it out, and only make it free if they really want to. there is a reason multi touch only has 2 fingers, and it was hard to even get those 2 to play nice.