Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cloud Networking The Internet Games Technology

OnLive CEO Provides Details On Cloud Gaming 136

Posted by Soulskill
from the attack-of-the-jittering-packets dept.
eldavojohn writes "OnLive is a new cloud gaming service that is in beta testing. While it might sound like nothing more than corporate buzzwords creeping over into the gaming world, a new video reveals how the CEO claims his service will work. Perlman explains OnLive's solution to the video game compression problem and talks about the '80 ms latency budget.' It's pretty interesting to listen to him figure out this budget and where the 'costs' come from. (Video only.) Now, this all hinges on the 'microconsole,' which — as he reveals at the beginning of the video — is so cheap they plan to give it away. We may also see it incorporated with TVs and other electronic devices. He goes on to talk about perceptual science and dealing with packet irregularities on the internet."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OnLive CEO Provides Details On Cloud Gaming

Comments Filter:
  • Linux? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 30, 2009 @02:28AM (#29589871)

    Does it run on Linux? I mean I know this question is often used in jest, but I'm serious.

    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Does it run on Linux? I mean I know this question is often used in jest, but I'm serious.

      Yes. Did you RTFA?

    • by Yacoby (1295064)

      Does it run on Linux? I mean I know this question is often used in jest, but I'm serious.

      If it does then next year will truly be the year of Linux on the desktop

      • Linux gaming is all I've wanted to make me switch.

        Having to swap between Linux and Windows between getting games working and playing games just made me resent Linux for being too much like my day job. I don't come home to fix my OS; I come home to use it, and that's where Windows has the upper hand (at least as a gaming OS).

        This service, if it runs on Linux, will make Ballmer quite literally shit himself.
        • by Rogerborg (306625)

          Oh noes, Have you tried WINE lately? I haven't tried it with anything cutting edge, but it surprised me by Just Working for the older (~San Andreas era) Windows games that I've tried it with.

        • by PitaBred (632671)
          It doesn't run on Linux. The games themselves run on Windows, and the video feed and control is redirected to a little box on your end. That little box happens to run Linux. It's basically like VNC or rdesktop. Does it count as "running on Linux" if you run Office over an rdesktop connection to a Windows server from a Linux client? This is the same concept.
    • by elrous0 (869638) *
      The CEO claims it will run on about everything (further indication, IMHO, that this is vaporware). The CEO probably would claim Commodore 64 compatibility if it got him some more venture capital.
  • Oh yes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zouden (232738) on Wednesday September 30, 2009 @02:37AM (#29589899)

    "is so cheap they plan to give it away"

    Hey Perlman (if that is your real name): the dot-com bubble called. They want their failed business strategy back. Subsidise the hardware, sure, but don't give it away. That's just asking for financial disaster. Your business is risky enough as it is.

    • Re:Oh yes (Score:5, Interesting)

      by psergiu (67614) on Wednesday September 30, 2009 @03:04AM (#29590015)

      Shhh ... shut up. They might hear you.

      I DO want a free box with Ethernet, wireless, HDMI, surround audio, USB (for wired controllers) and maybe Bluetooth (for the wireless ones) and with a CPU wih enough oomph to decode HD streamed video. If we manage to port XBMC on this ... :)

      • by slim (1652)

        a CPU wih enough oomph to decode HD streamed video

        If they decode video in the CPU, they're doing it wrong.

        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          If they decode video in the CPU, they're doing it wrong.

          Using hardware decoders is non-trivial. You can't just call one library and have access to accelerated video on old nvidia, new nvidia, old ati, new ati, and intel at the same time. By targeting the CPU itself they reach the maximum number of subscribers, including those with shitty integrated video which can't really accelerate anything.

          • by slim (1652)

            Using hardware decoders is non-trivial.

            It's pretty trivial if you have control over the hardware. This particular thread is about the 'free' hardware they intend to distribute.

            The microconsole is bound to contain a cheap, low powered CPU, and a mass market decoder chip.

    • Re:Oh yes (Score:5, Funny)

      by slim (1652) <{john} {at} {hartnup.net}> on Wednesday September 30, 2009 @03:27AM (#29590157) Homepage

      the dot-com bubble called. They want their failed business strategy back. Subsidise the hardware, sure, but don't give it away.

      My mobile phone company must be crying into their balance sheet.

      • by Zouden (232738)

        Phone companies don't give away phones. You buy them as part of a contract. If that's what OnLive is doing, fine, but then they shouldn't say that the hardware is so cheap they can "give it away".

        The razor-and-razorblades model doesn't work if you give away the razors for free.

        • by slim (1652)

          Phone companies don't give away phones. You buy them as part of a contract. If that's what OnLive is doing, fine, but then they shouldn't say that the hardware is so cheap they can "give it away".

          Semantics. Plenty of marketing will express it as an airtime contract with a "free phone".

          OnLive is the razor. The games are the razorblades, and you won't get those for free.

          • The difference is that with a mobile phone, they have some gaurentee of income because of the contract. The contract says "You agree to pay us this much a month for X months, or a single lump fee of Y should you cancel the contract." Ok well that means that if you keep your contract, they make money since you pay them for service each month. If you cancel, the fee is sufficient to cover the cost of the phone.

            However if this is a situation of "Here's free hardware, you pay for games," that only works if I ha

            • by slim (1652)

              The difference is that with a mobile phone, they have some gaurentee of income because of the contract.

              We don't yet know whether OnLive intends to give away microconsoles without a contract.

              My first guess is that it will come free with a contract. Just as with a cable box or a satellite receiver.

    • Re:Oh yes (Score:5, Funny)

      by Diabolus Advocatus (1067604) on Wednesday September 30, 2009 @03:52AM (#29590277)
      Sshhhh. If they give it away I'll collect a few thousand and build a free beowulf cluster.
    • by Sockatume (732728)

      Why not give it away? It's probably cheaper than the average cable TV box. Their real expenses are server-side, and need to be paid by gathering a large customer base. There's little to be gained by deterring potential customers by overcharging for a piece-of-crap streaming box.

    • "is so cheap they plan to give it away"

      Hey Perlman (if that is your real name): the dot-com bubble called. They want their failed business strategy back. Subsidise the hardware, sure, but don't give it away. That's just asking for financial disaster. Your business is risky enough as it is.

      They're not really giving anything away. The hardware will be 'free', but you'll be paying a hefty subscription.

      This isn't like the dot-com bubble's business model. This is like the cellphone business model.

      Anyhow this isn't the problem with the concept. The problem is they think games at 80ms lag are fun. That's 80ms of input lag, that is, between moving the mouse and seeing it move, or clicking a button and seeing a shot - not just for other player's actions. 80ms sounds horrible to me.

    • by elrous0 (869638) *
      Don't be so cynical. I predict this system will be the biggest thing in consoles since the Phantom [wikipedia.org].
    • by Guspaz (556486)

      How is this any different from ISPs that give you a modem "free" with your subscription? Or Verizon putting down four figures to wire your house on the hope that they'll recoup it over a period of years? Or your cellphone company giving you a "free" phone with three year contract (or even on pay-as-you-go in Virgin Mobile USA's case)?

      If you're paying $x per month as a steady revenue stream, it's not a big deal. This isn't the same as giving away CueCats and hoping people use it, this is a hardware-provided-

  • Wait... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Sl4shd0t0rg (810273)
    Where I have I heard this before? Oh yeah, from a company that now makes lapboards and keyboards, Phantom is it?
    • Re:Wait... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Sockatume (732728) on Wednesday September 30, 2009 @04:44AM (#29590565)

      Your memory's faulty. The Phantom was essentially Steam or Xbox 360's version of Live before the infrastructure existed to support such a thing. It was still supposed to be a client-side games console. Server-side rendering is a different animal. A ridiculous animal, mind you, but a different animal none the less.

  • Well looks like they are getting funding from some serious players:
    http://blog.seattlepi.com/techchron/archives/180603.asp [seattlepi.com]
    http://blog.onlive.com/2009/09/29/onlive-closes-major-investment/ [onlive.com]
    AT&T Media Holdings, Inc., Lauder Partners, Warner Bros., Autodesk and Maverick Capital.
    • by IBBoard (1128019)

      Warner Brothers are probably getting in there so that they can keep getting a cut of the money, even if people aren't playing their franchise games.

      AT&T are probably in there because they can make a killing through the extra bandwidth people will need!

      Other than that I've not heard of them (perhaps they're big in the US and not outside, or maybe they're some "behind the scenes" names who are big really but most people have just heard of the sub-companies).

      • I think Lauder Partners and Maverick Capital are venture capital companies. Autodesk, if it is THE Autodesk, is a big 2D and 3D design software company in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodesk [wikipedia.org]
      • by mrdoogee (1179081)

        AT&T may also be getting in on it just in case Verizon was thinking about getting in on it. Kinda as a "just in case" thing. If for some reason Onlive isn't vaporware, AND they manage to get thier ISP back to a "pay-per-bit" model they would stand to make a killing on bandwidth charges. I could also see them implying to onlive customers that AT&T's pipes are better for the service than Verizon's.

  • by iCantSpell (1162581) on Wednesday September 30, 2009 @03:03AM (#29590009)
    I live in Japan, and it only cost $60-80 USD a month to have a 100MB up & down fiber optic connection in every room of my house. I know Japan is only the size of California, but come on. Seriously, the US spends millions on beach sand [sundancevacations.com] and damn near nothing on real connections.
    • by crossmr (957846)
      $29 in South Korea..
    • I live in Japan, and it only cost $60-80 USD a month to have a 100MB up & down fiber optic connection in every room of my house.

      Cablevision offers 100Mbps for $99/mo in the US. Comcast offers 50Mbps for $99/mo as well.

      Comcast has more customers than there are people in Korea. They will achieve 80% DOCSIS 3 coverage by the end of 2009. Delivering "100Mbps" is as simple as updating a configuration file. The problem is that the contention ratio would be horrible.

      Guess what, though? The contention ratio is

    • Because our nations are so similar. Ok so you've got a nice cheap connection. May I ask how much you pay for your living arrangements? Also, how big is the place you live? For reference I pay about $850/month for my place. I don't rent, I own. That amount includes principal and interest on the loan, taxes, and association dues. For that I have a 167 square meter, 3 bedroom, condo. The condo grounds have a pool and jacuzzi for the use of the residents, as well as some nice grassy areas to sit and read and so

  • by syousef (465911) on Wednesday September 30, 2009 @03:10AM (#29590055) Journal

    Gaming on Weed might sounds like fun with all them clouds but the reality is you'll wake up in your mid 30s, broke, with no life and wish you hadn't. Besides everyone knows your reaction time is better when you're sober.

  • by syousef (465911) on Wednesday September 30, 2009 @03:16AM (#29590107) Journal

    Servers that scale: check. Resources brought online as needed: check. Software as a service: Check.

    And that's what make MMORPGs SUCK in my book. I can't play on the train (unless I spend a lot on wireless broadband - it ain't cheap in Aus). I have to rely on servers being up. I don't have time for any of that. If I get an hour to play a game, it needs to be available then and there whenever and whereever I get a chance to play.

    If I want online chat I'll socialise with real world friends and family. I even have a couple of backups (mobile phone and land line). If you think I'm a luddite keep in mind I was on Skype and MSN with my mother 2 nights ago (after going round and fixing the security on her wireless network). I know there are people who love these games - even to the point of neglecting "real" life, but I just can't get into a system where my pleasure is at some company's control. I don't want to play a game against a freakishly good 12 year old. I might be interested in a game against a real world friend but I don't want something that saps my time and requires friends interested in the same niche as me.

    By all means diversify but can we please keep traditional on a cd/dvd games that don't require a cloud, or even a network?

    • by dbIII (701233) on Wednesday September 30, 2009 @04:07AM (#29590357)
      Not a bad idea. MMORPGs should really descend from the clouds and only connect when you do want the shared content. You could do single player quests on Tuesday nights instead of just watching TV. You could visit a city for repairs/travel portal/vendor/whatever without having the huge lag from having to load the position data for a couple of thousand players and without reading the transcipt of some pedo describing in which orifice he wants to put his hands.
    • by ummcdou4 (469863)

      I missed the part about him nuking all the other game companies that makes games on a traditional cd/dvd.

      A market need that is profitable will be filled ( even some unprofitable ones)

    • by slim (1652) <{john} {at} {hartnup.net}> on Wednesday September 30, 2009 @06:54AM (#29591207) Homepage

      Servers that scale: check. Resources brought online as needed: check. Software as a service: Check.

      And that's what make MMORPGs SUCK in my book.

      Yet MMORPGs are a massive success. They fit in with the desires of millions, you're just not one of those millions.

      I don't buy makeup. I don't boldly announce that the makeup industry can't possibly make money.

    • by radish (98371)

      You're missing the point. This isn't about the TYPE of games you play, it's about HOW you play them. The demos I've seen have been straightforward FPS and racing titles, not MMOs. These games can be single player or multiplayer - the idea is you can play PC games without having to buy a gaming PC. Yes it requires a network and yes it requires their service to be up, but that's not a big deal for most people.

    • by AbRASiON (589899) *

      While I think the idea of onlive is a complete and utter hype wank like the phantom console, you either didn't read the article or the article doesn't cover what Onlive is about.

      Onlive is a product designed to let you play any games, be it multiplayer or single player on very very low end hardware, all the computations are done remotely, you just need a client installed on your PC, laptop or possibly even console or set top box.
      They have a mammoth render farm of machines and a custom build of the games, say

      • You forgot how it's rubbish because the subscription fees for something like 5 years (the typicial lifespan of a console) would probably have to amount to at least the price of a decent console plus a few games each year, if they want to cover their costs. These huge gaming server rigs, bandwidth, power and game licenses don't come for free. Suppose 5 * 12 * $20, which would be $1200 already, which buys you a PS3 with 10 games. What I, as a consumer, would get in return, would be a 'gaming rig' that stops w

    • by brkello (642429)
      You forgot to add....now get off my lawn!

      But seriously, we all want games that cater to what we are looking for. Right now we have diversity enough to have something appeal to almost everyone. I don't see that changing for awhile.
  • ... rhymes with Cloud Wanking.

    The allure of ***Cloud*** (insert fireworks) surprises and doesn't surprise me. Seems like any tech concept you can put in simple allegorical terms that can be understood by the technically illiterate investors (and tech journalists at Wired) is a surefire recipe for success. Here... let me try:

    "Mountain(TM) Computing! The Problem: computing resources are spread too thin across the enterprise. Solution: With Mountain(TM) computing we marshal them for access at the peak. Intel a

  • For those with short attention spans, the product is supposed to provide games by server-side rendering. The essential question is: on aggregate, is it cheaper for them to buy the game-rendering hardware and set up the network infrastructure and add their margin, than for the end user to simply go out and buy a games console outright? If 20% of their users want to play Crysis 2, and 80% want to play Peggle, the company needs to buy enough heavy-duty hardware for all of those people to play Crysis 2, and sti

    • by slim (1652)

      If 20% of their users want to play Crysis 2, and 80% want to play Peggle, the company needs to buy enough heavy-duty hardware for all of those people to play Crysis 2, and still offer the service at a price which will please people who want Peggle. I'm not sure that the maths will work.

      Er, no they don't.

      What's more, if 100% of their customers want to play Crysis 2, half on weekends, half on weekdays, then they only need to buy enough heavy-duty hardware for half the capacity. When a home console isn't being played, that's potential computing power being wasted.

      • by Rogerborg (306625)

        What's more, if 100% of their customers want to play Crysis 2, half on weekends, half on weekdays, then they only need to buy enough heavy-duty hardware for half the capacity.

        Until the next public holiday, when 100% of their customers try to play and either half of them can't, or all of them have a sucky experience. Still, at least that'll cause their paying customer base to reduce to the level that they can support, so I guess it's a self-solving problem.

        • by slim (1652)

          Until the next public holiday, when 100% of their customers try to play and either half of them can't, or all of them have a sucky experience.

          It's up to them as service providers to work out the right scale. It will likely *never* be necessary to have enough grunt for every subscriber to be playing a top-end game simultanously.

          In your example of a public holiday, for instance - OK, some people will spend the day playing Crysis when they would normally be working. Others will go to see friends/family and not play games at all. Things even out.

          Yes, they'll need to predict peaks and provide for them. That's no different to any other service.

          • by Rogerborg (306625)

            I agree that my 100% figure is just as bullshit as your 50%. The salient point is that they have to[*] provide enough iron to cover the peak, while not bankrupting themselves at the mean or median level of usage. That's going to be a tricky proposition since unlike (e.g.) an MMO they won't know the peak/mean load per customer until they've got enough customers to start losing them through bad service.

            [*] They don't have to, iff they don't mind hemorrhaging customers.

    • More than likely, the graphics-intensive games will be rendered at resolutions which make mid-level hardware fine for what they require. You won't find a hardcore PC gamer using this service; 1920x1080 will be his choice, and he'll have the hardware to back it up. I see this as being piped to a widescreen 720p TV at best, 17" monitor at 1280x1024 maybe. Hopefully it'll followed by an app for Windows, OS/X, and Linux which will save on hardware costs to the company and mean I can finally 3D game on a laptop
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by giorgiofr (887762)
        You know, I play most games at "full-everything" quality on an 8800GT and an Athlon X2 3800 with 4GB RAM. Power consumption is less than 300W at peak.
        You don't need monstruosities unless you are deeply in love with diminishing returns.
        • by mariushm (1022195)

          It's even less... My quad core with a Radeon 4850 and 4 GB of memory won't go over 270W at full load, playing at 1920x1200 and highest settings. On idle, it's 167w... And this is with a bad power supply, a 460w with less than 75% power efficiency.

          As for parent poster, I agree... Crysis and other games would most likely be rendered at maximum 720p and low to medium settings, because any better quality would just be lost on the compression and people won't notice it. 4:3 will probably be rendered at 1280x1024

        • by slim (1652)

          Newsflash: most people would consider your 8800GT, Athlon X2 3800 with 4GB RAM a very high level machine.

          Then there's all the people with laptops that have lots of CPU, lots of RAM, and a crummy graphics card.

        • What's "most games"? I can pretty much guarantee you don't play FarCry 2, Crysis, or WoW with "full everything" on that computer, because I don't play those games with "full everything" on an overclocked 8800GTX, 4GB low-latency RAM, and a quad core Q6600 running at over 3GHz.

          Unless you're running it on an iPod screen.
          • by giorgiofr (887762)
            I played Crysis, briefly, at mid-level settings. FarCry 2 does not pique my interest. But WoW?! It runs well on weaker setups than mine. I did turn everything to the max the couple of times I played it anyway.
            I am playing Dead Space, Stalker, Pathologic, EVE, DoW and a few other games at max settings. Resolution is 1280x1024. If I notice any slowing down I turn settings down a bit until it's smooth again.
            • Ah, that's the difference. I turn details down and run at 1920x1200.

              WoW shadows hobble the latest systems, and have done since WotLK. They did something very bad with particle effects with that release.
        • by PingSpike (947548)

          And thats why I think this is an absolutely retarded idea. Lets assume for a moment that they have a wizard on staff that has allowed them to workaround the United States' horrible broadband infrastructure and cause transmission latency times to exceed the speed of light over Joe Sixpacks 12mb/s comcrap connection. They claim the reason people are going to want this is because "they won't need to buy a multi-thousand dollar PC". What? I'm not even sure I could spend several thousand dollars on a gaming PC i

      • by slim (1652)

        I see this as being piped to a widescreen 720p TV at best, 17" monitor at 1280x1024 maybe.

        OnLive does 'SD' or 'HD'. 'HD' is 720p. I'm guessing that SD is 640x480.

    • by crossmr (957846)
      In short. No. They have some serious issues here. Likely they're going to charge $19.99 or $29.99/month for this. Anymore and they risk making it look too expensive. That means each user will pay an average of $240/$360 a year. They will get money from partners, and maybe AT&T is going to give them a deal on bandwidth on their end. No doubt AT&T will double dip on its customers. What's the cost of a machine? Well its certainly more than $360. That's a good start on a graphics card to play crisis at
      • by slim (1652)

        Do they need to buy 1 machine for every person? Absolutely. If they don't, they run a risk.

        If all their users play the big games simultaneously, they're doomed. I personally don't think they'll get that kind of peak. Some people like to play at weekends, some before dinner, some after their SO has gone to bed.

        Likely they're going to charge $19.99 or $29.99/month for this.

        Source? I'm guessing you have no idea what they're going to charge. We don't know whether they'll charge by the hour or by the month, whether you'll buy a package or an individual game, any of that. My guess is it'll be a combination of these.

        Which leads me to another thought. With pricing,

        • by crossmr (957846)

          If all their users play the big games simultaneously, they're doomed. I personally don't think they'll get that kind of peak. Some people like to play at weekends, some before dinner, some after their SO has gone to bed.

          Of course they are. Unfortunately they can't guess when these people want to play. Any hiccups in the service are going to translate to very bad press on a new service. So if people have to wait in line to play a game it is going to be a rather bad thing for them.

          Source? I'm guessing you hav

          • by slim (1652)

            Why run 2 machines? Its going to suck if you buy 1000 machines for peggle and 1000 machines for crysis and 1500 people want to play crysis and 20 want to play peggle level games.

            Since they're not going to ghost a machine to prep it for every player, i think their only logical choice is to install every game on every machine.

            Clearly, you wouldn't "install" a game on any individual server.

            You'd have the game files on a big fileserver (SAN, whatever). You'd have the same software on every single game server, and the supervisor node that assigns players to hardware would know the hardware specs of each server.

            Then you'd use a best-fit algorithm to decide which is the most appropriate place to host the requested game. One server could host one game of Crysis, or 5 games of Bioshock, or 20 games of Peggle. Or 2 games of Bioshock and

  • In the video, when he talks about spectators all watching one person (same stream), he says they would use "multicast within our datacenters". Well, I could see the point of using multicast up to the end-points through the whole path (which, at least in germany, sadly won't work, because providers here don't support it), but using it within the datacenters? How will that help 100.000 people watching the stream, you will still need to unicast it expensively to every single viewer from the border of the datac

    • by citizenr (871508)
      Multicast doesn't work anywhere over internet. I think they want to install datacenters directly at big ISPs and hope for special deals catering to their needs. Maybe they will share revenue with those ISPs?
      I dont see this working and scaling in any shape or form without special treatment from big providers. Hell, even youtube likes to slow down at some times of day, and youtube uses less bandwidth and crappiest resolution.
  • I feel like this would totally destroy rhythm based games and fighting games where even 30 or 40 ms lag is noticeable to the average player because of the way the timing works. Aiming in shooting games would probably feel too weird to be very enjoyable.

    Imagine some sort of cloud gaming future in like 2050 where vast swaths of game genres have been killed off by the lag inherent to the game systems, and people play nothing but slow paced adventure and puzzle games!
  • The video is 13:37 long. OnLive must be good.
  • latency is not the only problem that this will hit.

    I see bandwidth as one big one as many people only have 1.5-3 meg download and can't get faster. also cable may not be much better just think about how much load this will put on a node if a block full of people all hit this at the same time.

    also the need for a LOT of hardware at EACH data center (Hardware needs like 1 high end pc per user for a lot of the games + back end systems) and the they will need a lot of data centers all over the place to keep lag

  • So if we all move to simple client apps and micro consoles, no longer upgrading our machines ourselves, then who will be driving high-end graphics innovations? With no market for PC graphics cards or even for cards in new consoles then who pays ATI / Nvidia to continue developing new technology? I suppose the responsibility then falls to game developers? Will they need to push new graphics innovation nearly as hard as the current market where large companies are constantly competing to upstage each other vi
    • by slim (1652)

      With no market for PC graphics cards or even for cards in new consoles then who pays ATI / Nvidia to continue developing new technology?

      Firstly, the servers for cloud gaming services will need loads of GPUs, so demand for new graphics chips would not diminish.

      Secondly, this isn't going to obsolete locally hosted gaming. Many people will still want to run ninja gaming rigs; many people will want to play on traditional consoles. Cloud gaming may poach some customers away from local gaming, and it may attract people who could never be bothered with the hassles of local gaming. But it won't kill local gaming.

      • by aXis100 (690904)

        Also, many (if not most) people wont have the network capability to play cloud gaming. There are many days when my feed cant keep up with YouTube, and that's with dedicated ADSL. What about when I'm travelling or at a hotspot?

  • It would be cool, if on the road, I could launch one of my games whereever I'm at (say a friends) and play my games. But instead of a service, I want to run the server myself.

    There's streammygame.com for the pc (haven't tried it yet) but again it's a service and not standalone.

Your own mileage may vary.

Working...