Pipeline Dreams

When I read and hear about this fabulous OnLive service that everyone is suddenly talking about at GDC, I’m immediately reminded of the Phantom, which I hasten to point out is still not the centerpiece of my living room. After all, while OnLive may have what the Phantom never did — credibility — the basic idea is now running six years old, and still seems like the stuff of myth and legends that computer engineers tell their kids to put them to sleep at night. Pardon my enormous skepticism, but I believe as much in the practicality of OnLive as I do the existence of Leprechauns and Unicorns.

To his credit, founder Steve Perlman is doing a masterful job of publicly selling the idea that this service should be seen as something more than an improbable silicon dream, and the promise of “interactive video compression” technology to deliver high-definition gaming in real time sure sounds fancy. But, really, am I now meant to buy into the idea that some company I’ve never heard of has partnered with the worlds major publishers to deliver gaming from some nebulous cloud of data a thousand miles away at the speed of virtual light, and all on the cheap?

But, even as I question the technology itself, it's the practicality of building a long-term consumer base where I find my real stumbling block. Call it lack of vision, but I don't see gamers, a historically finicky genus, getting all warm and fuzzy on the idea of relying on their internet connection and flawless latency every time they feel like accessing content for which they have paid top dollar. I can feel the furious heat from a distant future where two hours downtime means that your entire library of gaming has been held captive.

But, for the time being let’s give OnLive the benefit of the doubt. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that in a year or so you can go to the store, buy a fifty dollar piece of equipment, plug it into your television or computer and rely on distant processors and routers to consistently deliver latency free gaming. Suddenly, everyone with even a rudimentary PC now has convenient, controlled access to a library of games.

Well, that answers everyone’s problems, doesn’t it? I mean, here it is! This is it, the future — the road to the one-console dream.

I long to be enthusiastic. I want to be optimistic. On paper, this seems feasible, not just because it models what seems to be the natural evolution of gaming but because it answers so many issues along the way. At first, I couldn’t quite figure out how this virtual unknown was able to get companies like EA or Take-Two to even give them an appointment, and then I realized exactly how publisher-friendly this kind of platform is. Think about how many problems OnLive potentially addresses:

Lost Revenue to the Used Market
Piracy
DRM
Licensing Fees
The Costs of Cross-platform Development
Scalability

With a proof of concept and a good powerpoint presentation, its really not that surprising that publishers might be falling over themselves at the prospect. And, lets face it, the timing is right. The major console manufacturers are reeling from the magnificent costs of getting the latest generation rolling. There’s no enthusiasm from consumers or manufacturers to even think about the next generation. No, that doesn’t mean that Sony and Microsoft will be enthusiastic about conceding their hard-fought marketshare, but it’s not difficult to imagine that if publishers found an alternative that addressed their concerns, their support for traditional consoles might flag.

From an industry point of view, it all makes sense. Practically, however? Well, that’s another story. Now may be the time to begin exploring this kind of service, but it’s hard to believe that the broadband infrastructure is there for enough people to invest and get a good result. Beyond that, there’s the question of adoption from what has become one of the most significant segments of the market, casual gamers. This is exactly the sort of thing they hate about video games. You just get them comfortable with their Wii and all of the sudden you tell them that now they need to do something entirely different and alien. There’s something very hardcore and impersonal about OnLive, and while I can see myself trying the service out it’s not as easy to imagine a lot of parents and grandparents getting on board with a service based system delivering games from a network cloud.

Face it, you can't really put OnLive subscriptions under the Christmas Tree.

And, then there’s Nintendo. While I can imagine vague scenarios in which Microsoft and Sony might collapse under pressure from partners and crippled budgets, the Big N by comparison seems indefatigable. Go ahead and try to imagine a realistic scenario where a Mario game is delivered through OnLive, I dare you.

So basically then, this is another online games delivery service, and so I have to ask why this is better than GameTap or Steam. Get right down to it, and they are asking me to pay a premium to subscribe to service where I can buy the same games for what’s sure to be the same price, but instead of using physical media or a relatively permanent media now I must rely on an internet connection and distant servers to properly process and deliver the content. Remind me again why I would want to pay a fee to not have my games?

It’s a buzzworthy concept that is titillating on the surface, but seems rife with impracticalities when closely examined. I’m just not sure that gamers in general are ready to abandon gaming as a product and look at instead as an indistinct service.

Comments

After reading and watching a bunch of stuff on this service one point stuck out that I think pretty much kills the idea from the get go.

Right now it doesn't matter where you are West Coast, East Coast, Central, hell even Europe, everyone can play on the same server if they decide. The way Onlive has their service setup if you are on the West Coast you use the West Coast servers, and some one on the East Coast uses East Coast servers. Those servers don't talk to each other which means people on opposite sides of the coast can't play with each other. It's just not possible and the lag would be too severe for either of the two to try and use the other coasts server.

That puts a damper on a lot of multiplayer gaming. I know here at GWJ we have people from all over North America playing TF2 together all the time, imagine if half that community were forced to split up.

The creators were talking about how they were looking into ways to get the information to travel faster so that they could just set up one server in the middle of everything and have it just work, but it didn't sound like they were close to getting that to happen just yet. So for me the service is pretty much dead in the water. Not that I would have an opportunity to try it out soon anyways. It's U.S. only for the beta.

Gaald wrote:

The creators were talking about how they were looking into ways to get the information to travel faster so that they could just set up one server in the middle of everything and have it just work, but it didn't sound like they were close to getting that to happen just yet. So for me the service is pretty much dead in the water. Not that I would have an opportunity to try it out soon anyways. It's U.S. only for the beta.

If I remember correctly they were making a joke about figuring out how to go faster than light. I'm pretty sure they are not going to solve that one anytime soon.

This is for console games as much as PC games. The videos on GameTrailers have interviews with the guy and they show all kinds of console games. He talks about the Xbox 360 and PC games, and he even says "...and even PS3 games can be ported, with a bit of work."

I agree whole heartedly that the technology isn't even there. We can't even get reliable multiplayer games to play without lag, how in hell does this thing expect to work smoothly while streaming video the whole time?! Not to mention streaming services like Netflix and Hulu can't even get reliable HD video content to your house, and they use a buffer. This OnLive service will not be able to make use of a buffer as everything is rendered real time in reaction to your input.

It will never happen. Not in a million years. Not until we have some kind of network technology breakthrough that is implemented world over.

Gaald, why do you think they'd use some arbitrary limit on which game servers their servers running the game clients could connect to? The lag they are struggling with is between the controller and their server running the game client, not between the game client and the game server for multiplayer games.

nossid wrote:

Gaald, why do you think they'd use some arbitrary limit on which game servers their servers running the game clients could connect to? The lag they are struggling with is between the controller and their server running the game client, not between the game client and the game server for multiplayer games.

Because they answered a question about whether West Coast players could play with East Coast players and the answer was no. You play on the servers in your area, the lag between you and a server over 1500 miles would be too great for you to play. I assume it may even make the experience worse for everyone else trying to play as well.

Another thing to note is that they are using specially made servers that they created. They are not just renting out servers in any of the server farms out there that already exist. Their servers require GPUS and whatever proprietary hardware they developed in order to compress all the video they have very quickly. They make their own racks and bring them to a server farm where they rent space and the ability to plug into their pipeline. So it's not like they can take advantage of a lot of the existing infrastructure which means added expense for them initially.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

They demoed the service with Crysis and all the games they are showing at GDC are high-end 3D games with the exception of World of Goo. This is intended to be a hardcore gamer's service.

Which is exactly why there is no market for this with current or even near future technology. Hardcore gamers are going to be even MORE picky about input latency, frame stutters etc. Not to mention that they are obviously quite willing today to shell out the money for "real" consoles and PCs.

I agree whole heartedly that the technology isn't even there. We can't even get reliable multiplayer games to play without lag, how in hell does this thing expect to work smoothly while streaming video the whole time?! Not to mention streaming services like Netflix and Hulu can't even get reliable HD video content to your house, and they use a buffer. This OnLive service will not be able to make use of a buffer as everything is rendered real time in reaction to your input.

Well for one thing your applying currently multiplayer logic to this model. Which is completely wrong and illogical. In this model the gameplay happens on the backend.. your just getting screen updates compressed to your end. The latency they must overcome has nothing to do with the latency and lag that currently plagues multiplayer games.. if anything that type of latency and lag is removed since all the players are essentially playing on the same East Coast or West Coast or wherever data center where all the "boxes" essentially sit right next to eachother.

You can make a neat demo out of everything... but if you have 500 users or 1000 users... they need one current PC GPU for each user or some special madeup-GPU to serve more than one user... so if they have 200 000 users, they need way more hardware than any current server farms. So it might end up that I am paying for remote hardware... ridiculous.

cheers,

Gaald wrote:
nossid wrote:

Gaald, why do you think they'd use some arbitrary limit on which game servers their servers running the game clients could connect to? The lag they are struggling with is between the controller and their server running the game client, not between the game client and the game server for multiplayer games.

Because they answered a question about whether West Coast players could play with East Coast players and the answer was no. You play on the servers in your area, the lag between you and a server over 1500 miles would be too great for you to play. I assume it may even make the experience worse for everyone else trying to play as well.

I've been listening to that part a couple of times (here, first question at 43.40 with follow up at 45.40) and he seems to only be addressing (LAN-)servers run by themselves in their data centers, not third party servers. It's a very odd way to answer the question as it comes from the perspective that everything will be running within their sphere of influence, almost like for the current consoles. When running normal PC-games that would require them to actively be limiting which servers you can connect to. I suspect his head was too far up in the clouds to answer that properly.

I can't even bring myself to go this far down the speculative road - I keep hitting an impasse when I think about how OnLive will never be as responsive as even the crummiest antique gaming systems of my youth.

Not every game depends on control responsiveness, but every gameplay experience is impacted by it to some degree. If nothing else, your perception of the game's "feel" will still be determined by how well it controls. The laws of physics simply dictate that this device will never be better than second rate in this respect, even in a world that is ideal enough for it to function properly otherwise.

I'm reminded of an old interview with Carmack and Romero, talking about latency in Quake:

But some of Quake's limitations cannot be transcended by brilliant programming. No game will ever be fast enough to suit these guys. Nature itself holds them back.

"There's nothing you can do about latency," says John Romero, referring to physical restraints that slow down network play. "It's inherent in the system."

"Yeah," says John Carmack wistfully, "the speed of light sucks."

And, of course, QuakeWorld and subsequent multiplayer games are only as smooth as they are now due to client prediction. Imagine, then, that all OnLive games will have roughly the same responsiveness as original NetQuake, where your client has no prediction and must rely entirely on the server for all movement. Think about how even miniscule amounts of latency on a LAN degraded the NetQuake experience. And now, think to yourself that OnLive will never even be that good.

Tolerable? Probably. Ideal? Definitely not.

Woah hold on here. Are you trying to suggest a scenario where someone could start up a game like TF2 using the Onlive service and than search for 3rd party and private servers (like we do today) so that they could play with their friends? No way no how. Not using the service the way it runs today. Not only would you have to deal with the lag we all face trying to play mulitplayer games the way we do today but now you are adding the lag inherent in the Onlive system, however small it may end up being. That sounds untenable to me.

I am positive the way the Onlive system works is that you subscribe and play whatever games you want by renting or buying but it's all done on their hardware and you are limited to playing multiplayer with those people using the same Onlive servers you are.

I am positive the way the Onlive system works is that you subscribe and play whatever games you want by renting or buying but it's all done on their hardware and you are limited to playing multiplayer with those people using the same Onlive servers you are.

I believe that is exactly how this works.. you have this OnLive community that you can play with and thats it.

Gaald wrote:

Woah hold on here. Are you trying to suggest a scenario where someone could start up a game like TF2 using the Onlive service and than search for 3rd party and private servers (like we do today) so that they could play with their friends? No way no how. Not using the service the way it runs today. Not only would you have to deal with the lag we all face trying to play mulitplayer games the way we do today but now you are adding the lag inherent in the Onlive system, however small it may end up being. That sounds untenable to me.

I am positive the way the Onlive system works is that you subscribe and play whatever games you want by renting or buying but it's all done on their hardware and you are limited to playing multiplayer with those people using the same Onlive servers you are.

Indeed I am. Lag between game clients and game servers is much less severe than the input lag. I used to play TF2 across the Atlantic almost daily remember. They would end up losing a huge portion of their "social" side of the service with such a forced limitation with only a relatively minor increase in the perception that their service isn't lagging. I will remain skeptical of them enforcing such a filter on regular PC games until it's actually confirmed.

Edit: I should just start using the phrase "I will remain skeptical until it's actually confirmed" for everything about them.

The article wrote:

And, then there’s Nintendo. While I can imagine vague scenarios in which Microsoft and Sony might collapse under pressure from partners and crippled budgets, the Big N by comparison seems indefatigable. Go ahead and try to imagine a realistic scenario where a Mario game is delivered through OnLive, I dare you.

I can't imagine one, but I feel like Nintendo's business position has less impact on that conclusion than the possibility that the input latency would be hell on motion-sensitive controls.

OnLive will most likely not be suitable for most everyone in these forums. If you are a hardcore PC gamer you are comfortable with buying a new gaming rig every couple of years and upgrading your GPU etc. For many, services like Steam and Impulse are good enough and therefore don't need to subscribe to OnLive. However......

If you are an average PC owner who typically owns a cheap laptop that comes with a crappy CPU and integrated Intel graphics, you can't really play many PC games. In addition, with the rise of Netbooks, this trend towards even lower CPU/GPU/memory specs for the average consumer is going to continue. Over the past 5 years the trend has been away from Desktops to Notebooks. Destop PC sales are in terminal decline at the expense of Notebooks. The point here is that a huge majority of PC owners don't own or will never own a gaming rig. For these people (probably 90% of users), this type of streaming game service can make a ton of sense.

If this service is priced right (i.e. say similar to Xbox Live annual fee of $50/year), this could potentially open up the entire PC game library to the masses. I don't think it will threaten the hardcore who want to run games locally, but for the masses, this is potential nirvana. Also add in the fact that you can plug into any TV set with a cheap adapter and bingo, you can play all these games on the TV just like a console.

This could also be a long term threat to consoles. Maybe not the current generation, but more likely the next one. In fact, if cloud computing based gaming is technically viable, we might have just seen the last game console from Sony and Microsoft. Microsoft in particular hates hardware. Consoles are sold at a loss. They would much rather just sell Xbox Live service and monetize via online. However they are obviously late to the game here. I wouldnt be surprised if Microsoft comes up with their own cloud computing offering or ends up just acquires these guys. In fact thats what Microsoft did with the founder of OnLive's previous company WebTV. Microsoft acquried WebTV in for $425M in 1997. Bottom line if not OnLive, it will someone else that does it. Cloud computing based gaming appears to be on the cusp.

There are also several other huge motivations why game publishers want a service like OnLive to succeed. Piracy, box retail, and cyclicality. Let me address all three points.
1. Piracy -- we all now this is a huge factor. Server based gaming could eliminate PC game piracy. In fact publishers might want to revert to this method exclusively to distribute PC games. Why allow any of the code to be released to the public when it can be uploaded to bittorrent 30 minutes after a game is released? By launching exclusively via streaming, this can't happen.
2. Box retail -- There are many drawbacks to selling shrink wrapped software to retailers. First retailers take a 20-25% margin on every game sold. In addition, guys like Gamestop then have an enormous used game resell biz. Resale market is hurting new sales. Publishers hate this. By going to server based channel, they can again avoid this. The also added benefit would be if they distribute games via server, they can also avoid the 20%+ margin they have to pay to the console maker (i.e. royalty that Sony, Microsft, Nintendo charge).
3. Cyclicality -- what do I mean here? Well for time immortal, the console games business has been "cyclical". Every 5 years or so a new generation of hardware consoles is launched. The tailend of a cycle for most publishers is often very brutal. In this period, game sales slow down or decline and the R&D investment for the upcoming cycle starts to ramp. This leads to a cratering of their earnings and profitability. Investors hate this about the industry and so do the publishers. Well, with the potential that server based gaming brings, if it could eliminate the need for new consoles, then it could in theory eliminate the "cyclicality" of the industry. Instead it would look much more like the MMO market. There is no underlying hardware cycle that drives the MMO market. Rather it is more a steady growth trajectory driven by growth of the Internet.

Anyways, there are many factors in play here. If OnLive can actually get its technology to work and scale, then the promise this type of service can deliver would truly be transformative. We can only wait and see. If you go their website, you can sign up for the beta which they will launch maybe sometime this summer.

This is how ONLIVE was born. Imagine a rich mafia guy talking to a John Carmack clone.

Tony: "Hey I have this idea... about... playing games from servers... it's genius."
John: (to himself) "Oh no..."
Tony: "You told me about those fancy videocards... but not everyone has them fancy videocards..."
John: (to himself) "Sweet Moses I don't like where this is going..."
Tony: "You fallin' asleep on me Johnny-boy ? I'm a real businessman with a real money, and this is what I want you to do..."
John: "I am going to hang myself."
Tony: "WHAT ?"
John: "Did I say that ? I meant, I am going to charge my cell."
Tony: "That's not what I heard."
John: "So, this new idea of yours. I'll start working on it right now !!"
Tony: "How much you need ?"
John: "Uh... this much."
Tony: "Done. Don't be sellin' yourself short, kid."
John: "Three few years from now I am a dead man."
Tony: "What ?"
John: "Let's get a few beers to celebrate our plan !"

Neeeeever going to happen.
A good first step would be to get Skype (not exactly a bandwidth hog) working without hiccups, then move onto the HD gaming.

But, for the time being let’s give OnLive the benefit of the doubt. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that in a year or so you can go to the store, buy a fifty dollar piece of equipment, plug it into your television or computer and rely on distant processors and routers to consistently deliver latency free gaming. Suddenly, everyone with even a rudimentary PC now has convenient, controlled access to a library of games.

PC and Mac don't require the Onlive box - it's a browser plug-in. Zero initial cost.

So basically then, this is another online games delivery service, and so I have to ask why this is better than GameTap or Steam. Get right down to it, and they are asking me to pay a premium to subscribe to service where I can buy the same games for what’s sure to be the same price, but instead of using physical media or a relatively permanent media now I must rely on an internet connection and distant servers to properly process and deliver the content. Remind me again why I would want to pay a fee to not have my games?

You've missed the point. They're not competing against other methods of software delivery, they're competing against hardware costs. They're selling a subscription based alternative to a $200-400 console and the PC upgrade treadmill. Since we don't know the subscription price point yet, it's hard to say if it would be worthwhile, but if you spend $500 every two years on PC upgrades (I know I spend far more then that) you're ahead even at $19.95/month.

They're also making an argument for "buy the game once, play it anywhere" since all you need is a box+TV or a PC/Mac and decent broadband to access your library.

Now may be the time to begin exploring this kind of service, but it’s hard to believe that the broadband infrastructure is there for enough people to invest and get a good result.

Now this, this we can agree on!

Technology aside, I don't think I'll like giving up the ability to customize my own computer for game playing.

Using OnLive, will I be able to:

1) Connect to a Ventrillo Server while playing UT3 or WoW?
2) Open up web browser on a second monitor to look up what loot the boss drops?
3) Add the drivers to support my G15 and N52TE game pad?
4) Add my own mods into WoW?
5) Setup scripts to use in game?
...

The list goes on.

Tkyl wrote:

Technology aside, I don't think I'll like giving up the ability to customize my own computer for game playing.

Using OnLive, will I be able to:

1) Connect to a Ventrillo Server while playing UT3 or WoW?
2) Open up web browser on a second monitor to look up what loot the boss drops?
3) Add the drivers to support my G15 and N52TE game pad?
4) Add my own mods into WoW?
5) Setup scripts to use in game?
...

The list goes on.

The first three I would say yes, there would be the ability to do all of that with a possible exception to 3 where in they would need to support those controller types, but they would be stupid not to support all controller types within their system. For example I bet you the microsoft puck that allows you to use the wireless controller as a game pad would work no problem.

As for 4 and 5, I doubt anything that modifies the game would be allowed to work, but stuff like macros would as it doesn't change the game in anyway just automates button pushes etc.

I went to the OnLive website to check out the product and my computer lagged loading the video. Hmm.. internet based gaming and I lag loading thier product video.

The only people for this seems really good is those who can never afford anything that's over a hundred dollars.

Some people are bad with money

Gaald wrote:

WOW geekery

Good lord Rob I didn't know you were THAT much into WOW ! From listening to the podcast for almost a year, I never could've guessed

shihonage wrote:

This is how ONLIVE was born. Imagine a rich mafia guy talking to a John Carmack clone.

Tony: "Hey I have this idea... about... playing games from servers... it's genius."
John: (to himself) "Oh no..."
Tony: "You told me about those fancy videocards... but not everyone has them fancy videocards..."
John: (to himself) "Sweet Moses I don't like where this is going..."
Tony: "You fallin' asleep on me Johnny-boy ? I'm a real businessman with a real money, and this is what I want you to do..."
John: "I am going to hang myself."
Tony: "WHAT ?"
John: "Did I say that ? I meant, I am going to charge my cell."
Tony: "That's not what I heard."
John: "So, this new idea of yours. I'll start working on it right now !!"
Tony: "How much you need ?"
John: "Uh... this much."
Tony: "Done. Don't be sellin' yourself short, kid."
John: "Three few years from now I am a dead man."
Tony: "What ?"
John: "Let's get a few beers to celebrate our plan !"

Except of course that little small detail that the guys behind it have actually done something with their professional careers to get to where they are today.

So did Tony Soprano. His garbage business is thriving, man.

I know Comcast and other cable providers have placed caps on how much you can download a month. Go over that cap and you have to pay per gig. If on live ever comes to light, it could easily get killed by gamers internet providers hitting them with hefty charges after they go over the cap.

interstate78 wrote:

The only people for this seems really good is those who can never afford anything that's over a hundred dollars.

Some people are bad with money

Gaald wrote:

WOW geekery

Good lord Rob I didn't know you were THAT much into WOW ! From listening to the podcast for almost a year, I never could've guessed :P

Or maybe it could be for people who got tired of spending alot of money to troubleshoot buggy software in their free time. Or maybe those folks who have more than one hobby that costs money and time.
Or maybe they had kid's and so their play time is more valuable and infrequent.
Or maybe ...

I think you get the point. It isn't just about money. I want it to be easy and hassle free as my time is valuable which is why I stopped being a PC Gamer (for the most part) and switched to consoles. I also travel alot and my laptop is nothing special so being able to play while on the road is a big thing for me. I'm still not convinced this is it but I'm willing to give it a shot when they do their Beta.

I'd like to know how game saving works with ONLIVE. Was that covered in any of the presentations?

Arguably, the most precious (costly) part of non-MMO gaming is your saved game state. (I'm not saying that MMO state isn't just as costly, but it's out of your hands today.) It's easy to have spent tens of hours of time investing in the generation of this data and given that your time is a limited resource -- likely one of the most limited if you're a typical reader here with job and family responsibilities -- it's easy to see that after just a few hours spent that the cost for the saved game has exceeded that of the purchased game. With a few games with tens of hours worth of saved games, you've got more invested in that data than you spent buying the fancy console or PC.

So, just where and how does ONLIVE do game saves?

Presumably if you're using one of those cheap hardware boxes connected to a TV, there's only the storage that *might* be present in that box, but for other clients there's likely gigabytes of space available.

If it ships the game save data down the wire, you're likely paused for a noticable while since most game saves aren't particularly stingy space-wise these days.

If it keeps the game save data on the server (permitting you to continue your character's RPG story on different clients) you've now got a real database to address. You've got to keep multiple instances of "you" from trying to read/write that same data at the "same time". You've got to address the costs of the storage itself. What limits are you going to impose on the customer? What about expiration of the data? For some games, I know that I routinely have hundreds of separate saved games -- it doesn't cost me more than the disk space I already paid for and I'll recover it when I uninstall the game.

I'd hate to think that this means that we'll have all games moving to the single saved state model: The one where it saves your state automatically for you and there's no option to capture a point in time and go back to it sometime later to see what's different if you make a different choice.

Indignant wrote:

I know Comcast and other cable providers have placed caps on how much you can download a month. Go over that cap and you have to pay per gig. If on live ever comes to light, it could easily get killed by gamers internet providers hitting them with hefty charges after they go over the cap.

What's stopping them from forming parternships with various isp's?

croaker wrote:

I'd like to know how game saving works with ONLIVE. Was that covered in any of the presentations

They're (presumably) providing the equivalent of a ~3Ghz CPU, a high end GPU and 1-2GB of RAM per user, I doubt a couple of gigabytes of hard disk space per user on the server for saved games is going to be a problem.

croaker wrote:

I'd like to know how game saving works with ONLIVE. Was that covered in any of the presentations?

I wasn't paying much attention but it was mentioned during the gamespot video posted earlier. I don't remember the time though. He walked through playing a game he had rented earlier which was Prince of Persia and he mentioned it remembers where was in the game.