I have 20+ ms of lag by the time I even get out of my podunk city and into the next major router on the path. Now, no matter how good OnLive's encoding process is, and no matter how much power and bandwidth their server farms can put out, I'd wager that you'd still have to be physically located pretty close to one to get any kind of performance out of the service that people are hoping for.
Isn't that the plan though? To have server clusters all over the place, so you'll always have a "local" OnLive cluster to connect to? MMOs have been doing things that way for years, its just a question of how much all the gear necessary to make that a reality is going to cost them.
I know that I personally can get a ping of ~50ms to just about anywhere in Australia (From Melbourne) when playing Left4Dead, so even if there's only 5 or 6 clusters in the entire US (which seems unlikely) with a fast connection you should be fine surely? Maybe. Bleh. Speculation is fun and all but that's really all we can do at this point. Speculate.
It's a different thing. When you're playing Left 4 Dead you can deal with 100ms a lot easier because the game itself, and your input to it, isn't lagging, it's just your connection to the server hosting the game. We're talking about input lag, which is a lot harder to deal with.
Also, that's pretty impressive anyway, I'm in Brisbane on cable internet and rarely get less than 300ms on US L4D servers
I thought the reason 24fps was okay for film but 60fps was best for games is because you're expecting feedback from your actions in games and lower than 60fps produces a lag or choppy effect because of this expectation. One that you don't get if your just watching something passively.
The reason that 24fps works for film is because there is already a degree of blurring occurring in film - the motion is in place, and when the film is capturing this motion in recording, it is not catching a series of discrete points every 1/24th of a second, but rather capturing the average across that 24th of a second. When we say 30fps or 60fps in computing terms, the computer is rendering discrete points in where objects would be located in an instantaneous fashion - it does not have this blurring built in, which is why improved frame rates look much smoother, and why we actually need to worry about things like motion blur.
I have 20+ ms of lag by the time I even get out of my podunk city and into the next major router on the path. Now, no matter how good OnLive's encoding process is, and no matter how much power and bandwidth their server farms can put out, I'd wager that you'd still have to be physically located pretty close to one to get any kind of performance out of the service that people are hoping for.
Isn't that the plan though? To have server clusters all over the place, so you'll always have a "local" OnLive cluster to connect to? MMOs have been doing things that way for years, its just a question of how much all the gear necessary to make that a reality is going to cost them.
I know that I personally can get a ping of ~50ms to just about anywhere in Australia (From Melbourne) when playing Left4Dead, so even if there's only 5 or 6 clusters in the entire US (which seems unlikely) with a fast connection you should be fine surely? Maybe. Bleh. Speculation is fun and all but that's really all we can do at this point. Speculate.
It's a different thing. When you're playing Left 4 Dead you can deal with 100ms a lot easier because the game itself, and your input to it, isn't lagging, it's just your connection to the server hosting the game. We're talking about input lag, which is a lot harder to deal with.
Also, that's pretty impressive anyway, I'm in Brisbane on cable internet and rarely get less than 300ms on US L4D servers
It is a different thing, but related. If he can pull 50ms to an arbitrary game server, then his input lag would only be 50ms, instead of the 80 we've been hypothysising. I'm sure I that is spelled incorrectly. Even more interesting is when you think that onlive has some supposed method of securing a connection in the absolute least number of hops possible. Perhaps some lucky blokes may actually see a realistic input lag of 20/30ms. Not the majority for sure, but neat.
I have 20+ ms of lag by the time I even get out of my podunk city and into the next major router on the path. Now, no matter how good OnLive's encoding process is, and no matter how much power and bandwidth their server farms can put out, I'd wager that you'd still have to be physically located pretty close to one to get any kind of performance out of the service that people are hoping for.
Isn't that the plan though? To have server clusters all over the place, so you'll always have a "local" OnLive cluster to connect to? MMOs have been doing things that way for years, its just a question of how much all the gear necessary to make that a reality is going to cost them.
I know that I personally can get a ping of ~50ms to just about anywhere in Australia (From Melbourne) when playing Left4Dead, so even if there's only 5 or 6 clusters in the entire US (which seems unlikely) with a fast connection you should be fine surely? Maybe. Bleh. Speculation is fun and all but that's really all we can do at this point. Speculate.
It's a different thing. When you're playing Left 4 Dead you can deal with 100ms a lot easier because the game itself, and your input to it, isn't lagging, it's just your connection to the server hosting the game. We're talking about input lag, which is a lot harder to deal with.
Also, that's pretty impressive anyway, I'm in Brisbane on cable internet and rarely get less than 300ms on US L4D servers
It is a different thing, but related. If he can pull 50ms to an arbitrary game server, then his input lag would only be 50ms, instead of the 80 we've been hypothysising. I'm sure I that is spelled incorrectly. Even more interesting is when you think that onlive has some supposed method of securing a connection in the absolute least number of hops possible. Perhaps some lucky blokes may actually see a realistic input lag of 20/30ms. Not the majority for sure, but neat.
Yeah, that's exactly what I was getting at. Having had a play with that "lag simulator" app someone posted it looks like 80ms of input lag would definitely be unplayable for me, but with any luck, I wouldn't even get that much. If I can get ~30ms to a L4D server in Sydney, surely I could expect the same response time from Onlive if that's where their nearest cluster is. If they built one in Melbourne I doubt i'd have much noticeable lag at all. I definitely couldn't play on a cluster in America though, as pure geography means i'm unlikely to ever have a ping much under 200ms from here to there.
It's not a matter of bothering, it's a matter of being unplayable.
This is the point of contention here. I think 80ms input lag, while not optimal, is perfectly playable. They say that multiplayer will be supported as well, and I don't know about that.. I certainly won't play UT or anything against people that are playing on their own computers, but I would play, for instance, fear 2 single player with an 80ms input lag. Hell I don't think I'd even notice it on a game like DoW2.
You may feel differently, and that is okay. But don't tell me that it is absolutely unplayable across the board for every game for every person. This is a rediculous statement.
Well, you can surely play Bejeweled or chess or checkers with that kind of input lag. No shooters or racing games or any games that involve any form of player controlled direct action AT ALL though. No fighting, shooting, sports, platforming, shooting of any sort.
You're limited to Popcap stuff, strategy games, and some RPGs (not all).
But they're showing CRYSIS on the Onlive media. Yeah, sure. Be my guest.
BTW, this has nothing to do with "feelings" or "opinions"... It's a matter of biology and physics.
After almost 8 years of development, thousands of partner meetings, millions of lines of code, and an uncountable number of all-nighters…
Drum roll please…
On June 17, 2010, during the E3 2010 show, the OnLive Game Service will be available for users in the 48 contiguous United States!
Everyone here at OnLive is just incredibly excited about this milestone. It’s the realization of a dream that we knew would be a huge undertaking, but also one that would change everything.
OnLive fundamentally transforms the way users experience games and interact with each other, and in time, will transform the way games are developed and marketed. By distilling specialized game hardware out of the equation, OnLive will allow games to be played as a pure media experience on virtually any device, with the same flexibility and instant-play experience that we’ve come to expect from online video and music.
For gamers, this means you never have to do anything for your gaming experience to keep getting better. And developers now can unleash unbounded creativity to deliver state-of-the-art gameplay that they know will reach virtually any gamer—instantly.
Today we also announced OnLive’s base service pricing, and a pretty cool special offer.
The base month-to-month service fee is $14.95. Loyalty programs (e.g. multi-month pricing) and other special offers will be announced by the start of E3. We’ve got a great special offer for starters: The first 25,000 qualified people to register on the OnLive Game Service will have their first 3 months’ service fee waived. You’ll find all the important details here, and note that the service fee does not include the purchase or rental of games.
Included in your monthly service fee are OnLive-exclusive features such as instant-play free game demos; multiplayer across PC, Mac and TV platforms; massive spectating; viewing of Brag Clips™ video capture and posting; and cloud-saving of games you’ve purchased—pause, and instantly resume from anywhere, even on a different platform.
Also included in the monthly service fee are features you’d expect from standard online games services such as gamer tags, user profiles, friends, chat, but with a twist: everything is live video. You’ll be friending through multiplay, Spectating, Brag Clips, or by flipping through video profiles of friends of friends of friends. OnLive is delivering the first instant video-based social network. It’s really cool.
Once you are on the service, instant-play, top-tier, newly-released games will be for sale and for rent on an à la carte basis. Specific pricing will be announced as games are released, so you’ll hear about the pricing of the first games by E3, but needless to say, we expect them to be offered at competitive prices. Games are always updated with the latest versions, and purchased game add-ons are playable instantly.
Initially, we’ll be offering the OnLive Game Service for PCs and Macs through a small browser plug-in. Later this year, we’ll announce the public availability of the MicroConsole™ TV adapter. And, we’ll be steadily expanding to other devices over time.
So, there it is. After a long and arduous journey, OnLive will be coming to a screen [really] near you.
I have 20+ ms of lag by the time I even get out of my podunk city and into the next major router on the path. Now, no matter how good OnLive's encoding process is, and no matter how much power and bandwidth their server farms can put out, I'd wager that you'd still have to be physically located pretty close to one to get any kind of performance out of the service that people are hoping for.
Isn't that the plan though? To have server clusters all over the place, so you'll always have a "local" OnLive cluster to connect to? MMOs have been doing things that way for years, its just a question of how much all the gear necessary to make that a reality is going to cost them.
I know that I personally can get a ping of ~50ms to just about anywhere in Australia (From Melbourne) when playing Left4Dead, so even if there's only 5 or 6 clusters in the entire US (which seems unlikely) with a fast connection you should be fine surely? Maybe. Bleh. Speculation is fun and all but that's really all we can do at this point. Speculate.
It's a different thing. When you're playing Left 4 Dead you can deal with 100ms a lot easier because the game itself, and your input to it, isn't lagging, it's just your connection to the server hosting the game. We're talking about input lag, which is a lot harder to deal with.
Also, that's pretty impressive anyway, I'm in Brisbane on cable internet and rarely get less than 300ms on US L4D servers
It is a different thing, but related. If he can pull 50ms to an arbitrary game server, then his input lag would only be 50ms, instead of the 80 we've been hypothysising. I'm sure I that is spelled incorrectly. Even more interesting is when you think that onlive has some supposed method of securing a connection in the absolute least number of hops possible. Perhaps some lucky blokes may actually see a realistic input lag of 20/30ms. Not the majority for sure, but neat.
Yeah, that's exactly what I was getting at. Having had a play with that "lag simulator" app someone posted it looks like 80ms of input lag would definitely be unplayable for me, but with any luck, I wouldn't even get that much. If I can get ~30ms to a L4D server in Sydney, surely I could expect the same response time from Onlive if that's where their nearest cluster is. If they built one in Melbourne I doubt i'd have much noticeable lag at all. I definitely couldn't play on a cluster in America though, as pure geography means i'm unlikely to ever have a ping much under 200ms from here to there.
Don't forget that the 30ms of lag in L4D doesn't affect your input. The server sorts out what you meant to do based on your input and your game state and what the state is on the server. If you had 80ms of latency on your input it would be very different. Essentially you're adding almost a tenth of a second to when you think of moving to when you do. That is pretty significant especially compared to the 15-20 ms humans are used too.
Then you have the lag from OnLive to the L4D server which is the normal lag playing an online game. 80-100 ms for me normally. That is going to seem much more significant on Onlive.
Cronus on
"Read twice, post once. It's almost like 'measure twice, cut once' only with reading." - MetaverseNomad
So it's a monthly fee on top of what you pay for the games. Can't say I'm too surprised. I'm curious how they'll handle rentals for stuff like DLC. If I rent Borderlands, can I rent the DLC as well? Does renting include all DLC?
I'm willing to try it, see how it works on my laptop. If it works well, awesome, I may keep it around. If not, then forget it.
While I don't quite understand how they're going to manage to be profitable in all this, I'm glad that someone's taking a first step down this road. Even if they crash and burn in spectacular fashion, the business and technology lessons learned as a consequence will benefit us all in the future.
TetraNitroCubaneThe DjinneratorAt the bottom of a bottleRegistered Userregular
edited March 2010
On top of my doubts about the functionality of OnLive, recent debacles in cloud-based gaming (See: Ubisoft's current clusterfuck) make me somewhat more distrustful of the service. Particularly in light of their price scheme. They obviously have a bit of an uphill battle going price wise, what with the necessity of subscription plus game purchases/rentals. I'd argue that if they can deliver on what they've promised, fully, that the cost could be worth it. But I can't shake the feeling that they're going to struggle to be profitable regardless. Particularly at this point in the console/pc cycle, where system requirements aren't all that outrageous currently, and console prices are dropping steadily.
If they fold, there's no bail-out option like the one that Steam has promised it's users, nor any option for 'user-generated' fixes to access purchased content. You really have to trust that OnLive will be around for as long as you want to play your game, and that you'll always have a fat, stable connection available to do so.
It's not impossible, but I'm still wary.
Actually, to be perfectly honest I'm apprehensive about OnLive becoming a roaring success. If it works they way they promise (and they can court developers), OnLive exclusivity pretty much means instant and theoretically uncircumventable DRM, since the client never touches the game code at all. Very good for protecting against piracy, but another step toward a world where we all don't own the games we pay for.
Uhhh.. Just wanted to point out something regarding input latency.
If your trace to the server shows you have a latency of 50ms, the input lag is going to be 100ms as the server must then send you the updated state to reflect your input.
It's a round trip, 50ms there and 50ms back.
And TNC is bang on. 100% unavoidable DRM. And you don't even own the stuff you are playing. Publishers slaver over this scenario where you simply license the content from them.. It's like the Paper Books VS eBook arguement.
On top of my doubts about the functionality of OnLive, recent debacles in cloud-based gaming (See: Ubisoft's current clusterfuck) make me somewhat more distrustful of the service. Particularly in light of their price scheme. They obviously have a bit of an uphill battle going price wise, what with the necessity of subscription plus game purcahses/rentals. I'd argue that if they can deliver on what they've promised, fully, that the cost could be worth it. But I can't shake the feeling that they're going to struggle to be profitable regardless. Particularly at this point in the console/pc cycle, where system requirements aren't all that outrageous currently, and console prices are dropping steadily.
If they fold, there's no bail-out option like the one that Steam has promised it's users, nor any option for 'user-generated' fixes to access purchased content. You really have to trust that OnLive will be around for as long as you want to play your game, and that you'll always have a fat, stable connection available to do so.
It's not impossible, but I'm still wary.
Actually, to be perfectly honest I'm apprehensive about OnLive becoming a roaring success. If it works they way they promise (and they can court developers), OnLive exclusivity pretty much means instant and theoretically uncircumventable DRM, since the client never touches the game code at all. Very good for protecting against piracy, but another step toward a world where we all don't own the games we pay for.
You send the server a message, the server replies. Obviously neither ping nor tracert would work if one or the other didn't happen.
Is anyone else as shocked as I am about the price? I mean yes the fact that it is going to actually launch is pretty amazing, but for $15 dollars a month? Less with loyalty discounts?!
That's $180 bucks a year for a computer that never stops being top of the line
On top of my doubts about the functionality of OnLive, recent debacles in cloud-based gaming (See: Ubisoft's current clusterfuck) make me somewhat more distrustful of the service. Particularly in light of their price scheme. They obviously have a bit of an uphill battle going price wise, what with the necessity of subscription plus game purcahses/rentals. I'd argue that if they can deliver on what they've promised, fully, that the cost could be worth it. But I can't shake the feeling that they're going to struggle to be profitable regardless. Particularly at this point in the console/pc cycle, where system requirements aren't all that outrageous currently, and console prices are dropping steadily.
If they fold, there's no bail-out option like the one that Steam has promised it's users, nor any option for 'user-generated' fixes to access purchased content. You really have to trust that OnLive will be around for as long as you want to play your game, and that you'll always have a fat, stable connection available to do so.
It's not impossible, but I'm still wary.
Actually, to be perfectly honest I'm apprehensive about OnLive becoming a roaring success. If it works they way they promise (and they can court developers), OnLive exclusivity pretty much means instant and theoretically uncircumventable DRM, since the client never touches the game code at all. Very good for protecting against piracy, but another step toward a world where we all don't own the games we pay for.
Also no modding
this is the thing that makes me so disinterested in this
mods and custom maps and the like really make games much more valuable to me, and with a service like this they would be nigh impossible
this is the thing that makes me so disinterested in this
mods and custom maps and the like really make games much more valuable to me, and with a service like this they would be nigh impossible
/puts on rose colored glasses
I would imagine that developers may WANT to encourage a system for modding so that players will perhaps play for longer.
Also they could rent out the modding tools for additional profit!
Interesting. Looking around their website and reading their blogs, it sounds like it's already up and running great for a small population of beta-testers. But that may or may not be hype.
Looks like for now they have it working for everything but playing. But you can spectate your friends games just fine and they are working on the interface stuff for playing. Sounds like figuring out how to control it is the main issue.
Oh, that's just a minor bug, I'm sure they'll have that worked ofucking seriously?
You'd think "Hey, let's see if this shit even works" would have been pretty high up on the To Do list.
He's talking about playing games on the Iphone specifically. Not on OnLive as a whole. Why does everyone seem convinced this thing is going to fail? I mean, i'm not convinced its going to succeed either, but jesus. Give them a fucking chance.
Mostly because I have "highspeed" internet in southeast wisconsin, which assuming their service violates the laws of physics and adds zero onto my latency means ~80 ms of input lag, which is pretty aweful.
Their claims remind me of the claims of Hughsnet before my brother bought it. I kept trying to tell him that even at the speed of light he would still be very laggy given the distances involved, but he didn't pay me no nevermind.
edit: I could play a civilization style game with this, but a first person shooter would just be hilarious
Fifteen dollars a month. That comes out to 180 dollars a year ignoring discounts. An Xbox Arcade is 200 dollars. Even with discounts, that is still too expensive. You have to pay for the service itself and you still need to rent/buy these games. These means you are either paying money to pay money to rent games or are buying games that will stop working if you cancel the service (I admit I don't know if this is true, but I don't think there is a download and play like a regular game option). Graphically intensive PC gaming is also not that popular anymore. There are a decent number of console ports but not a very wide range of graphically intense PC games. The service is backed by Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, Take-Two Interactive, THQ and Warner Bros. They havea decent number of games but nothing that should make most people decide to pay 15 dollars a month plus the cost of the games for.
Couscous on
0
TetraNitroCubaneThe DjinneratorAt the bottom of a bottleRegistered Userregular
Yeah, that's a serious strike against them in my book.
Recently I've been rediscovering all of my old games, and buying old games over GOG. The ability to dust off a decade-old CD of a game, patch it up with high-rez packs and user generated content, and play it flawlessly (even without a net connection) is superb. I don't know if OnLive will be around ten years from now, much less if I'd want to keep a subscription going for that long.
But ten years from now I guarantee I'll still have my copy of Deus Ex in the cardboard jewel case.
Fifteen dollars a month. That comes out to 180 dollars a year ignoring discounts. An Xbox Arcade is 200 dollars. Even with discounts, that is still too expensive. You have to pay for the service itself and you still need to rent/buy these games. These means you are either paying money to pay money to rent games or are buying games that will stop working if you cancel the service (I admit I don't know if this is true, but I don't think there is a download and play like a regular game option).(...)
VoodooExtreme is reporting that if you cancel your subscription then all your purchases are null and void. WTF.
I like how everyone is talking about lag, and how it makes a game "impossible to play".
Ive had friends in Armadeaddon... who play Left 4 Dead 2... with 300 ping. And still manage to be just as good as everyone else.
What kind of lag are we all talking about? Cause ive played video games with some fuck awful lag before. And guess what. It wasnt that bad.
That said... im more concerned with network 'hiccups' rather than lag.
A delay is one thing. How will they manage to create a stable enough network on the scale they are talking about without noticible drops in bandwidth alltogether.
Thats my main concern. A little delay might be annoying. A flat out pause would be infuriating.
you don't understand the complaint then. L4D2 is certainly playable with 300 ping because valve was kind enough to let players move around client side without having to go through the server first. If every single action you took in L4D2 took 300ms to happen you wouldn't be having half as much fun. This includes WASD movement and just moving the camera to look around
I'm going to be so happy when this flames out horribly. Paying as much in a year as you would for a mid-cycle current gen console, having to pay for games you never own on top of it, having to deal with constant latency problems, game drops completely due to bandwith fluctuations and so on.
The fallout when this crashes 4 months in and every one of their customers is out subscribtion fees + the games they paid for with absolutely nothing to show for it might keep games from moving to the publisher nirvana 'you never own a game' for decades. Thank you OnLive!
So I've had serious doubts about this thing already. And by that I mean it's pretty much dead to me.
But I read today that they're charging $15 per month for people to play the games they buy? What a terrible idea.
Here's the thing, to get people to pay a monthly fee for this, they've got to position the service as a console replacement. To position the service as a console replacement, they've got to get the vast majority of available games onto the service. But to get the vast majority of games onto the service, they've got to show publishers its worthwhile by getting people to pay a monthly fee for this.
The merits of the actual service aside (of which I think there are few anyway), this cycle is going to prevent them from barely even getting off the ground.
Fifteen dollars a month. That comes out to 180 dollars a year ignoring discounts. An Xbox Arcade is 200 dollars. Even with discounts, that is still too expensive. You have to pay for the service itself and you still need to rent/buy these games. These means you are either paying money to pay money to rent games or are buying games that will stop working if you cancel the service (I admit I don't know if this is true, but I don't think there is a download and play like a regular game option). Graphically intensive PC gaming is also not that popular anymore. There are a decent number of console ports but not a very wide range of graphically intense PC games. The service is backed by Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, Take-Two Interactive, THQ and Warner Bros. They havea decent number of games but nothing that should make most people decide to pay 15 dollars a month plus the cost of the games for.
On the price issue, I'd like to point out that when you consider how you really can't rent consoles anymore, it's not such a bad deal. Fifteen dollars to rent what is essentially several different consoles, at once, for a month, sounds pretty good to me. If the game rental prices are reasonable, it could be fairly nice for those who would like to try out a few platform exclusives without committing to purchasing the console.
Of course, there's more to it than that; the price of the TV adaptor and controller (unless you play on a computer instead), if (and how much) the technical issues significantly degrade the game experience, etc. But there's a solid niche that could be filled if Onlive is able to deliver. Not that I think they will, but it'd be nice if they do.
The thing is that the market segment you're talking about, budget consumers who don't want to commit to the full purchase price of a console, is the same market who values ability to resell and so on. Moreover, they're also going to be aware that after a year of this service they'd have a console ANYWAY for the same price - so it only makes sense from a budget concious consumer perspective as a 1-time use expenditure to play System Exclusive Y. $15 a month here or there is not going to keep them going.
Which is irrelevant, because
1) MS/Sony won't license it for the platform anyway and
2) The service won't actually work like they say it will
On the price issue, I'd like to point out that when you consider how you really can't rent consoles anymore, it's not such a bad deal. Fifteen dollars to rent what is essentially several different consoles, at once, for a month, sounds pretty good to me. If the game rental prices are reasonable, it could be fairly nice for those who would like to try out a few platform exclusives without committing to purchasing the console.
Except platform exclusives will never be on OnLive. You think Sony is going to spend $40 million on God of War 3 and then make it available to people who haven't even bought a PS3? That defeats the entire point of the exclusive for them.
Wet Bandit on
0
TetraNitroCubaneThe DjinneratorAt the bottom of a bottleRegistered Userregular
On the price issue, I'd like to point out that when you consider how you really can't rent consoles anymore, it's not such a bad deal. Fifteen dollars to rent what is essentially several different consoles, at once, for a month, sounds pretty good to me. If the game rental prices are reasonable, it could be fairly nice for those who would like to try out a few platform exclusives without committing to purchasing the console.
Except platform exclusives will never be on OnLive. You think Sony is going to spend $40 million on God of War 3 and then make it available to people who haven't even bought a PS3? That defeats the entire point of the exclusive for them.
This just made me think of something else: Let's say you wanted to play a 360 game through OnLive. Would all XBox Live content and multiplayer functionality be inaccessible, or are they going to have a way to pipe your XBL account through OnLive? I can imagine some non-360 owners getting right pissed if they found they had to pay for 1) OnLive subscription, 2) The actual game, and 3) Multiplayer. That's Microsoft's issue for charging for multiplayer, I realize, but it makes the case for just buying the console stronger in comparison to OnLive.
Alternatively, they can take it out. Though I'd imagine stripping out the multiplay from a variety of 3rd party 360 games would be a huge strike against them. Then again, maybe every multiplatform game OnLive serves will be the PS3 version.
The thing is that the market segment you're talking about, budget consumers who don't want to commit to the full purchase price of a console, is the same market who values ability to resell and so on. Moreover, they're also going to be aware that after a year of this service they'd have a console ANYWAY for the same price - so it only makes sense from a budget concious consumer perspective as a 1-time use expenditure to play System Exclusive Y. $15 a month here or there is not going to keep them going.
Which is irrelevant, because
1) MS/Sony won't license it for the platform anyway and
2) The service won't actually work like they say it will
The ability to resell? What, for five bucks off their next game? No, that's not at all the market segment I'm talking about.
I was talking about folks who already tend to rent games, or folks who might be tempted to if they could still rent consoles as well. And yes, I am talking about folks who probably wouldn't be consistent subscribers. As for your points:
1) At first, but if Onlive can somehow manage to get this to work, then who knows? As long the profit distribution is somewhat similar to brick and mortar rentals/purchases, plenty of companies might jump aboard. Maybe not Microsoft and Sony, but I could imagine SquareEnix, Atlus, and others seeing some appeal in it.
2) Probably won't. I already ended my last post on that same note. I'm just talking about the pricing, not the technological feasibility.
Except platform exclusives will never be on OnLive. You think Sony is going to spend $40 million on God of War 3 and then make it available to people who haven't even bought a PS3? That defeats the entire point of the exclusive for them.
To be honest, when I said platform exclusives, I was thinking of games that weren't developed by Sony and Microsoft, like the Kingdom Hearts series, or just about any Atlus console game. Obviously Sony and Microsoft have more at stake.
Posts
The reason that 24fps works for film is because there is already a degree of blurring occurring in film - the motion is in place, and when the film is capturing this motion in recording, it is not catching a series of discrete points every 1/24th of a second, but rather capturing the average across that 24th of a second. When we say 30fps or 60fps in computing terms, the computer is rendering discrete points in where objects would be located in an instantaneous fashion - it does not have this blurring built in, which is why improved frame rates look much smoother, and why we actually need to worry about things like motion blur.
Visual comparison of 15fps vs 30fps vs 60fps
Well, you can surely play Bejeweled or chess or checkers with that kind of input lag. No shooters or racing games or any games that involve any form of player controlled direct action AT ALL though. No fighting, shooting, sports, platforming, shooting of any sort.
You're limited to Popcap stuff, strategy games, and some RPGs (not all).
But they're showing CRYSIS on the Onlive media. Yeah, sure. Be my guest.
BTW, this has nothing to do with "feelings" or "opinions"... It's a matter of biology and physics.
http://blog.onlive.com/2010/03/10/onlive-coming-to-a-screen-near-you/
Blasted NDA. :P
Ok ok I got it. Now you can't SAY anything. That I understand.
But does the NDA cover smilies?
If you could respond with a single smiley, what would it be?
...mostly kidding
"Read twice, post once. It's almost like 'measure twice, cut once' only with reading." - MetaverseNomad
I'm willing to try it, see how it works on my laptop. If it works well, awesome, I may keep it around. If not, then forget it.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
If they fold, there's no bail-out option like the one that Steam has promised it's users, nor any option for 'user-generated' fixes to access purchased content. You really have to trust that OnLive will be around for as long as you want to play your game, and that you'll always have a fat, stable connection available to do so.
It's not impossible, but I'm still wary.
If your trace to the server shows you have a latency of 50ms, the input lag is going to be 100ms as the server must then send you the updated state to reflect your input.
It's a round trip, 50ms there and 50ms back.
And TNC is bang on. 100% unavoidable DRM. And you don't even own the stuff you are playing. Publishers slaver over this scenario where you simply license the content from them.. It's like the Paper Books VS eBook arguement.
Also no modding
You send the server a message, the server replies. Obviously neither ping nor tracert would work if one or the other didn't happen.
Is anyone else as shocked as I am about the price? I mean yes the fact that it is going to actually launch is pretty amazing, but for $15 dollars a month? Less with loyalty discounts?!
That's $180 bucks a year for a computer that never stops being top of the line
this is the thing that makes me so disinterested in this
mods and custom maps and the like really make games much more valuable to me, and with a service like this they would be nigh impossible
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
/puts on rose colored glasses
I would imagine that developers may WANT to encourage a system for modding so that players will perhaps play for longer.
Also they could rent out the modding tools for additional profit!
/Takes off pink glasses
They'll never go for it
Mostly because I have "highspeed" internet in southeast wisconsin, which assuming their service violates the laws of physics and adds zero onto my latency means ~80 ms of input lag, which is pretty aweful.
Their claims remind me of the claims of Hughsnet before my brother bought it. I kept trying to tell him that even at the speed of light he would still be very laggy given the distances involved, but he didn't pay me no nevermind.
edit: I could play a civilization style game with this, but a first person shooter would just be hilarious
Yeah, that's a serious strike against them in my book.
Recently I've been rediscovering all of my old games, and buying old games over GOG. The ability to dust off a decade-old CD of a game, patch it up with high-rez packs and user generated content, and play it flawlessly (even without a net connection) is superb. I don't know if OnLive will be around ten years from now, much less if I'd want to keep a subscription going for that long.
But ten years from now I guarantee I'll still have my copy of Deus Ex in the cardboard jewel case.
I'd do this for turn based strategy/slow puzzle games maybe
Those games tend not to push hardware much.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Even the tiniest bit of input delay on mouse-look (like having vsync on can sometimes cause) is way too jarring
Turn based games?
you don't understand the complaint then. L4D2 is certainly playable with 300 ping because valve was kind enough to let players move around client side without having to go through the server first. If every single action you took in L4D2 took 300ms to happen you wouldn't be having half as much fun. This includes WASD movement and just moving the camera to look around
Yes.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
The fallout when this crashes 4 months in and every one of their customers is out subscribtion fees + the games they paid for with absolutely nothing to show for it might keep games from moving to the publisher nirvana 'you never own a game' for decades. Thank you OnLive!
But I read today that they're charging $15 per month for people to play the games they buy? What a terrible idea.
Here's the thing, to get people to pay a monthly fee for this, they've got to position the service as a console replacement. To position the service as a console replacement, they've got to get the vast majority of available games onto the service. But to get the vast majority of games onto the service, they've got to show publishers its worthwhile by getting people to pay a monthly fee for this.
The merits of the actual service aside (of which I think there are few anyway), this cycle is going to prevent them from barely even getting off the ground.
but the fee and lack of nice things gaming on my pc or owning the game also
too many nails in the coffin and it isn't even released yet
On the price issue, I'd like to point out that when you consider how you really can't rent consoles anymore, it's not such a bad deal. Fifteen dollars to rent what is essentially several different consoles, at once, for a month, sounds pretty good to me. If the game rental prices are reasonable, it could be fairly nice for those who would like to try out a few platform exclusives without committing to purchasing the console.
Of course, there's more to it than that; the price of the TV adaptor and controller (unless you play on a computer instead), if (and how much) the technical issues significantly degrade the game experience, etc. But there's a solid niche that could be filled if Onlive is able to deliver. Not that I think they will, but it'd be nice if they do.
Which is irrelevant, because
1) MS/Sony won't license it for the platform anyway and
2) The service won't actually work like they say it will
Except platform exclusives will never be on OnLive. You think Sony is going to spend $40 million on God of War 3 and then make it available to people who haven't even bought a PS3? That defeats the entire point of the exclusive for them.
This just made me think of something else: Let's say you wanted to play a 360 game through OnLive. Would all XBox Live content and multiplayer functionality be inaccessible, or are they going to have a way to pipe your XBL account through OnLive? I can imagine some non-360 owners getting right pissed if they found they had to pay for 1) OnLive subscription, 2) The actual game, and 3) Multiplayer. That's Microsoft's issue for charging for multiplayer, I realize, but it makes the case for just buying the console stronger in comparison to OnLive.
Alternatively, they can take it out. Though I'd imagine stripping out the multiplay from a variety of 3rd party 360 games would be a huge strike against them. Then again, maybe every multiplatform game OnLive serves will be the PS3 version.
The ability to resell? What, for five bucks off their next game? No, that's not at all the market segment I'm talking about.
I was talking about folks who already tend to rent games, or folks who might be tempted to if they could still rent consoles as well. And yes, I am talking about folks who probably wouldn't be consistent subscribers. As for your points:
1) At first, but if Onlive can somehow manage to get this to work, then who knows? As long the profit distribution is somewhat similar to brick and mortar rentals/purchases, plenty of companies might jump aboard. Maybe not Microsoft and Sony, but I could imagine SquareEnix, Atlus, and others seeing some appeal in it.
2) Probably won't. I already ended my last post on that same note. I'm just talking about the pricing, not the technological feasibility.
To be honest, when I said platform exclusives, I was thinking of games that weren't developed by Sony and Microsoft, like the Kingdom Hearts series, or just about any Atlus console game. Obviously Sony and Microsoft have more at stake.