This would have been perfect for me, a fella with a shitty pc. Sadly, the cost on top of the monthly subscription is the work of silly geese. I will not pay those silly geese.
I just realized this comes out on my birthday.. I should get a free year as a birthday present from them. :P
ArcSyn on
0
TetraNitroCubaneThe DjinneratorAt the bottom of a bottleRegistered Userregular
edited March 2010
So it looks like OnLive will be offering the ability to play a limited number of demos without having a subscription account. It also appears that they might allow full-game-rental for a small subset of their library without a subscription. Story is here:
The pricing scheme announced this week by OnLive, in which you'd pay $15 a month for the privilege of buying and renting games, won't be the only way to interact with the streaming service. In addition to that "OnLive Game Service," the company will open an "OnLive Game Portal" sometime after the June 17 launch of the main service. It sounds a lot like the browser-based streaming offered by competitor Gaikai.
The Game Portal is a free browser-based service that allows streaming of a selection of demos, as well as a limited number of full games for rent -- for a per-game fee, without the monthly charge. The selection of games is limited not just in number, but also "subject to available OnLive service capacity and whatever usage limits are associated with each given demo."
The Portal will work with the OnLive set top box, in addition to the browser plug-in. It is expected to roll out sometime in 2010, after the June 17 launch of the main service.
I can see them doing a ton of business with the no-subscription rental model... Provided that this actually works they way they advertise. The whole "subject to capacity and availability and usage limits" thing sounds extremely silly goose for demos (let alone rentals!) though.
So it looks like OnLive will be offering the ability to play a limited number of demos without having a subscription account. It also appears that they might allow full-game-rental for a small subset of their library without a subscription. Story is here:
The pricing scheme announced this week by OnLive, in which you'd pay $15 a month for the privilege of buying and renting games, won't be the only way to interact with the streaming service. In addition to that "OnLive Game Service," the company will open an "OnLive Game Portal" sometime after the June 17 launch of the main service. It sounds a lot like the browser-based streaming offered by competitor Gaikai.
The Game Portal is a free browser-based service that allows streaming of a selection of demos, as well as a limited number of full games for rent -- for a per-game fee, without the monthly charge. The selection of games is limited not just in number, but also "subject to available OnLive service capacity and whatever usage limits are associated with each given demo."
The Portal will work with the OnLive set top box, in addition to the browser plug-in. It is expected to roll out sometime in 2010, after the June 17 launch of the main service.
I can see them doing a ton of business with the no-subscription rental model... Provided that this actually works they way they advertise. The whole "subject to capacity and availability and usage limits" thing sounds extremely silly goose for demos (let alone rentals!) though.
I believe that's marketing-speak for "the demo isn't the full game". And of course it's subject to service capacity - they care about paying customers first.
I think a lot of what's happening here, in terms of bitching about cost, is people not correctly identifying the market for onlive. I'm pretty sure no rational 'hardcore' gamer is gonna pick this up at current pricing policy, for the reasons that have already been mentioned; i.e, lack of exclusives, high cost relative to one-off purchase of console (even factoring in discounted game prices), a persistent sense of transience about the whole affair (in terms of not actually owning a physical copy of whatever).
Hardcore gamers won't endure the performance. Casual gamers won't endure the cost. There is no market for OnLive.
I think a lot of what's happening here, in terms of bitching about cost, is people not correctly identifying the market for onlive. I'm pretty sure no rational 'hardcore' gamer is gonna pick this up at current pricing policy, for the reasons that have already been mentioned; i.e, lack of exclusives, high cost relative to one-off purchase of console (even factoring in discounted game prices), a persistent sense of transience about the whole affair (in terms of not actually owning a physical copy of whatever).
Hardcore gamers won't endure the performance. Casual gamers won't endure the cost. There is no market for OnLive.
I'd argue that there is a market for platform retails, which is effectively what this is. Platform and video game retails, purchased and delivered online, with the option of 'buying' a lifetime retail for a game if one so chooses. Anyone who thinks it'll become the main method of gaming for most gamers is fooling themselves, as is anyone who thinks there is no market for the idea.
To me, the main issues are whether they can provide a service that is palatable to play, and how much the varies aspects of the service will cost. So far, we don't have answers to either matter.
I think they will need to partner with a larger entity (e.g. Comcast, Netflix) to make a noticeable impact on the marketplace. If this was service offered as part of your cable bill and the hardware came with your cable box or a Roku then it would have much broader appeal.
I really believe they intended to be bought out before now, thus their overreaction to Ryan [strike]Strout's[/strike] Shrout's column about the beta.
Yeah, that's the real problem: do you have to re-buy the game every month you want to play (I'd guess yes). Do they keep your saves (which you can't make copies of) if you let your subscription lapse? And so on.
The $ calculations needed to see if it makes sense are pretty simple. Let's say a console costs $X, and you anticipate wanting to play for Y months over the life of the console. If X/Y < 15, you're ahead buying. Going with a basic $200 cost for a console (which has the benefit of also playing exclusives), you'd have to want to use it for less than a year total for it to be cheaper per month to use OnLive than just buying a console mid-generation, and that's not allowing for the other benefits (used market to reduce the cost of games, access to platform exclusives, etc). And note that this includes 'if I want to kill a half hour playing Madden 1 day a month', not a month of full playtime.
Sure, you have to pay the console cost up front. Unless you make use of this nifty invention called 'credit'. But there's just NO WAY to come out ahead with any reasonable ammount of use of this system.
Why would you guess that? It's almost certainly not the case, otherwise it wouldn't be a purchase by any meaning of the word, just a month long rental. I mean, that'd be comparable to an MMO deleting all your characters every time you unsubscribed / when your subscription was up for renewal.
As for your math, there are several factors you're not taking into consideration. That not just one console is involved, and that buying a console mid/late generation won't have a negative impact on the games you want to play (see Chromehounds for a great example), are the two big ones.
For most gamers, I doubt this service would appeal as a replacement for owning their main system of choice. But for wanting to buy a few games that are on a different console (or a PC gamer with no consoles who wants to partake of a bit of console goodness), there's value to be had.
As I've pointed out, there's zero chance any console exclusive games will find their way onto this service in the future. Why on earth would a console maker allow it? The only exclusives these days are first party; they might as well put out Halo 4 on the PS3. This means its NOT an 'all consoles' replacement, and never will be.
I imagine the saves/rentals will be deleted when your account is simply because otherwise no one would ever keep up an ongoing account; there's no financial incentive and in fact even those defending the model concede that doing so makes no sense for just about any potential customer. Unfortunately, OnLive has to attract some kind of consistent userbase to bring in somewhat steady revenue, or there's no way this will be sustainable. You might trust them not to do that by being dickheads. I do not, because if that would have involved creating a pricing model under which it MADE SENSE for their consumers to exhibit that kind of behavior in the first place.
Anyone who thinks it'll become the main method of gaming for most gamers is fooling themselves
Just Onlive? Because I'd say in the long term pretty much the complete opposite applies. I'd be prepared to bet that within my lifetime I'll see a generation of gamers for whom the idea of actually, gasp, owning a physical product of any kind is a quaint curiosity.
Eight Rooks on
<AtlusParker> Sorry I'm playing Pokemon and vomiting at the same time so I'm not following the conversation in a linear fashion.
As I've pointed out, there's zero chance any console exclusive games will find their way onto this service in the future. Why on earth would a console maker allow it? The only exclusives these days are first party; they might as well put out Halo 4 on the PS3. This means its NOT an 'all consoles' replacement, and never will be.
Because it is not always their choice? Generally it is the choice of the game's publisher, or at least that has been my understanding. It's not all about Halo and Metal Gear, you know. If, for example, Atlus or Square Enix were to jump on board and offer up some of their PS2 games, I don't think Sony would be in a position to stop that.
I imagine the saves/rentals will be deleted when your account is simply because otherwise no one would ever keep up an ongoing account; there's no financial incentive and in fact even those defending the model concede that doing so makes no sense for just about any potential customer. Unfortunately, OnLive has to attract some kind of consistent userbase to bring in somewhat steady revenue, or there's no way this will be sustainable. You might trust them not to do that by being dickheads. I do not, because if that would have involved creating a pricing model under which it MADE SENSE for their consumers to exhibit that kind of behavior in the first place.
That's like MMOs deleting your characters when you unsubscribe, in order to provide more incentive to keep an ongoing account. They wouldn't do it, because such a policy would outrage and drive away customers, hurting the company far more than it could ever help them. Onlive is trying to pioneer a delivery mechanism with no exclusive content; they simply cannot afford to burn bridges like that.
And upon what, exactly, are you basing your that a consistent userbase is absolutely crucial? Yes, they have bandwidth and hardware costs. I'm just not seeing what factor is involved here that makes you think this is so completely financially ridiculous, yet isn't driving brick and mortar stores like Blockbuster out of business.
Dizzen on
0
TetraNitroCubaneThe DjinneratorAt the bottom of a bottleRegistered Userregular
Slide that fucker all the way to the right for 80ms of lag and have fun trying to play anything twitchy.
I agree that the input lag is positively atrocious there, and because of that OnLive looks to be unworkable even in a best-case scenario - But I'm guessing this thing isn't vaporware and will actually make it to market. They've had a closed beta going for a while now, and if folks were actually being scammed or the tech was completely unworkable, I'd assume at least one of them would say nuts to the NDA.
The few scraps of information that google yields from people in the beta seems to indicate that it's good only for slower paced games, as you'd expect. Twitch FPS games seem to be very 'meh' - I assume from input lag. It sounds like you could play them, but you really wouldn't want to.
Yeah, Sony and Nintendo are going to let OnLive run server side emulators for their exclusive first party games games. Sure. And magical faries will use pixie dust to solve the input lag problem.
JihadJesus on
0
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
All that does is generate 80ms of lag in your mouse movements
OnLive supposedly has found a way to counter this, probably similar to the ways online games currently compensate for similar amounts of network lag
I don't think it will feel as responsive as running a game locally, but the entire product pitch here is that they're streaming you the video and accepting your input while reducing input lag as much as they've found possible.
All that does is generate 80ms of lag in your mouse movements
OnLive supposedly has found a way to counter this, probably similar to the ways online games currently compensate for similar amounts of network lag
I don't think it will feel as responsive as running a game locally, but the entire product pitch here is that they're streaming you the video and accepting your input while reducing input lag as much as they've found possible.
I'm fairly certain this is one of those things that's kind of impossible to compensate for. How would they predict something like the user moving his mouse from one place to another in order to compensate for it?
All that does is generate 80ms of lag in your mouse movements
OnLive supposedly has found a way to counter this, probably similar to the ways online games currently compensate for similar amounts of network lag
I don't think it will feel as responsive as running a game locally, but the entire product pitch here is that they're streaming you the video and accepting your input while reducing input lag as much as they've found possible.
I'm fairly certain this is one of those things that's kind of impossible to compensate for. How would they predict something like the user moving his mouse from one place to another in order to compensate for it?
The way a game might do it is say, ok, Guy A shot Guy B but Guy B had moved by the time I received the data from Guy A. I'll just look back in time at where Guy B was 80ms ago and...oh look, Guy A hit him. Score.
No idea how you do this with a third party delay in the mix though.
The way a game might do it is say, ok, Guy A shot Guy B but Guy B had moved by the time I received the data from Guy A. I'll just look back in time at where Guy B was 80ms ago and...oh look, Guy A hit him. Score.
No idea how you do this with a third party delay in the mix though.
If you can run the "cursor" type stuff locally, maybe they can use the current time travel methods to resolve hits and misses.
I want my gun to go BANG! when I fire, but if it takes 80ms or so to show blood spatter or a bullet hole, I think I might be able to live with that.
The way a game might do it is say, ok, Guy A shot Guy B but Guy B had moved by the time I received the data from Guy A. I'll just look back in time at where Guy B was 80ms ago and...oh look, Guy A hit him. Score.
No idea how you do this with a third party delay in the mix though.
If you can run the "cursor" type stuff locally, maybe they can use the current time travel methods to resolve hits and misses.
I want my gun to go BANG! when I fire, but if it takes 80ms or so to show blood spatter or a bullet hole, I think I might be able to live with that.
See, that's how games multiplayer games work that render locally. If everything has to render on another server, there is *no way* to compensate for any network lag. It's all just a video stream, remember.
jonxp on
Every time you write parallel fifths, Bach kills a kitten.
3DS Friend Code: 2707-1614-5576 PAX Prime 2014 Buttoneering!
It's funny how the people defending Onlive fail again and again to understand what's input lag, how it works, why it's bad and how it's different from regular lag.
And I find it funny the people attacking Onlive have no experience with the system.
I don't see why people are so against this. This is a godsend for single player games (depending on the pricing of the games) for computers.
Is this system personally offensive or something? I just don't get it. Let it come out and try it.
It's not that the devs personally offended us or anything, it's that the system, knowing what we do now, isn't really that great of an idea for most releases that have high-end graphics, which are generally first person shooters that require quick reflexes. There's just no way to wave away the input lag.
And I find it funny the people attacking Onlive have no experience with the system.
I don't see why people are so against this. This is a godsend for single player games (depending on the pricing of the games) for computers.
Is this system personally offensive or something? I just don't get it. Let it come out and try it.
It's not that the devs personally offended us or anything, it's that the system, knowing what we do now, isn't really that great of an idea for most releases that have high-end graphics, which are generally first person shooters that require quick reflexes. There's just no way to wave away the input lag.
Then this is a system the gaming community should want to thrive because devs might be forced to make games other than FPS.
Of course maybe not though, as we've seen how devs have reacted to the wii, which has succeeded yet hasn't derailed FPS.
And I find it funny the people attacking Onlive have no experience with the system.
I don't see why people are so against this. This is a godsend for single player games (depending on the pricing of the games) for computers.
Is this system personally offensive or something? I just don't get it. Let it come out and try it.
It's not that the devs personally offended us or anything, it's that the system, knowing what we do now, isn't really that great of an idea for most releases that have high-end graphics, which are generally first person shooters that require quick reflexes. There's just no way to wave away the input lag.
Then this is a system the gaming community should want to thrive because devs might be forced to make games other than FPS.
Of course maybe not though, as we've seen how devs have reacted to the wii, which has succeeded yet hasn't derailed FPS.
I think you're giving this system too much credit if you're led to believe that it will have such an impact as to not only draw developers away from making first person shooters, but force them to do so.
And I find it funny the people attacking Onlive have no experience with the system.
I don't see why people are so against this. This is a godsend for single player games (depending on the pricing of the games) for computers.
Is this system personally offensive or something? I just don't get it. Let it come out and try it.
How so? Do you know how cheap a video card can be and still do 720p gaming? Well under $100. And it won't give you either compression artifacts or lag. Neither will it require you to maintain a subscription to continue playing any game you bought. And it won't require huge amounts of bandwidth.
So this is for people that don't know any better. In a couple years CPUs could well have graphic capabilities that surpass this built right in. Then Onlive will be for no one.
Anyway, I still maintain that the fact that Activision hasn't bought these guys out so that they can use this tech for WoW means that it isn't worth much.
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
You guys are doing a lot of bashing on something before it's even come out/been used. My suggestion is to see how it is when it is released before condemning it instantly.
You guys are doing a lot of bashing on something before it's even come out/been used. My suggestion is to see how it is when it is released before condemning it instantly.
If someone announced a perpetual motion machine that would revolutionize how energy is produced, you better damn well believe I'd bash on it before seeing it.
This is the same category - they are making claims that trump basic physics, so it gets bashed until proven otherwise.
How so? Do you know how cheap a video card can be and still do 720p gaming? Well under $100.
Show me a 3D video card I can plug into my netbook and play 720p graphically-intensive games for under $100.
Now, I understand input lag, and I am skeptical how well this could work. But I also hope that in some way it does work because it could increase profits for game companies with the number of people who buy netbooks and laptops and wouldn't normally be able to play said game.
Right now, PC game developers need a way to get high quality games available to as many people as possible.
You guys are doing a lot of bashing on something before it's even come out/been used. My suggestion is to see how it is when it is released before condemning it instantly.
If someone announced a perpetual motion machine that would revolutionize how energy is produced, you better damn well believe I'd bash on it before seeing it.
This is the same category - they are making claims that trump basic physics, so it gets bashed until proven otherwise.
How does playing a game over cloud computing (Something that already exists.) trump basic physics? Have you guys thought that maybe the box they give you to access it might have a bit of hardware acceleration/software on it that helps with reducing lag? Sorta like how you can get better adapters for your PC so your PC's connection has less lag?
Honestly though were i to use this service, i'd be using it to get single player games that have short storylines or something like that or other non-multi games. I'd probably still have my main multiplayer games running off my own PC or all my favourite games at least. But for something like Bioshock 2, a game i regret purchasing for its lack of content for its price, i would rather just "rent it" over the net and play it that way on my TV if i could.
You guys are doing a lot of bashing on something before it's even come out/been used. My suggestion is to see how it is when it is released before condemning it instantly.
If someone announced a perpetual motion machine that would revolutionize how energy is produced, you better damn well believe I'd bash on it before seeing it.
This is the same category - they are making claims that trump basic physics, so it gets bashed until proven otherwise.
How does playing a game over cloud computing (Something that already exists.) trump basic physics? Have you guys thought that maybe the box they give you to access it might have a bit of hardware acceleration/software on it that helps with reducing lag? Sorta like how you can get better adapters for your PC so your PC's connection has less lag?
There is a fundamental difference between input lag and network lag. This has been said many times already in this thread, and it is key point as to why people are rightfully scoffing at this.
You guys are doing a lot of bashing on something before it's even come out/been used. My suggestion is to see how it is when it is released before condemning it instantly.
If someone announced a perpetual motion machine that would revolutionize how energy is produced, you better damn well believe I'd bash on it before seeing it.
This is the same category - they are making claims that trump basic physics, so it gets bashed until proven otherwise.
How does playing a game over cloud computing (Something that already exists.) trump basic physics? Have you guys thought that maybe the box they give you to access it might have a bit of hardware acceleration/software on it that helps with reducing lag? Sorta like how you can get better adapters for your PC so your PC's connection has less lag?
There is a fundamental difference between input lag and network lag. This has been said many times already in this thread, and it is key point as to why people are rightfully scoffing at this.
Yes which is why i said something about the hardware. You seemed to have missed that part though. Like i said, you guys are all bashing on something you as of yet, know basically nothing about. So it's all just a lot of pulling things out of asses at this point. I myself am excited about the future prospects of such a service/device and am looking forward to see how it works out, for better or worse. I tend to not formulate opinions on things i haven't even given a chance yet.
It could end up being shit. But if it isn't well, then that will be pretty cool.
You guys are doing a lot of bashing on something before it's even come out/been used. My suggestion is to see how it is when it is released before condemning it instantly.
If someone announced a perpetual motion machine that would revolutionize how energy is produced, you better damn well believe I'd bash on it before seeing it.
This is the same category - they are making claims that trump basic physics, so it gets bashed until proven otherwise.
How does playing a game over cloud computing (Something that already exists.) trump basic physics? Have you guys thought that maybe the box they give you to access it might have a bit of hardware acceleration/software on it that helps with reducing lag? Sorta like how you can get better adapters for your PC so your PC's connection has less lag?
There is a fundamental difference between input lag and network lag. This has been said many times already in this thread, and it is key point as to why people are rightfully scoffing at this.
Yes which is why i said something about the hardware. You seemed to have missed that part though. Like i said, you guys are all bashing on something you as of yet, know basically nothing about. So it's all just a lot of pulling things out of asses at this point. I myself am excited about the future prospects of such a service/device and am looking forward to see how it works out, for better or worse. I tend to not formulate opinions on things i haven't even given a chance yet.
It could end up being shit. But if it isn't well, then that will be pretty cool.
What about the hardware?
If the rendering is being done server side, which it would have to be if you don't have a copy of the game or for their service to be worth a damn, then that box isn't going to help when it comes to input lag.
The fact remains it takes a certain amount of time for a signal to travel from your computer to their servers. No magic box is going to suddenly change how fast an electrical signal can travel.
LittleBoots on
Tofu wrote: Here be Littleboots, destroyer of threads and master of drunkposting.
You guys are doing a lot of bashing on something before it's even come out/been used. My suggestion is to see how it is when it is released before condemning it instantly.
If someone announced a perpetual motion machine that would revolutionize how energy is produced, you better damn well believe I'd bash on it before seeing it.
This is the same category - they are making claims that trump basic physics, so it gets bashed until proven otherwise.
How does playing a game over cloud computing (Something that already exists.) trump basic physics? Have you guys thought that maybe the box they give you to access it might have a bit of hardware acceleration/software on it that helps with reducing lag? Sorta like how you can get better adapters for your PC so your PC's connection has less lag?
You guys are doing a lot of bashing on something before it's even come out/been used. My suggestion is to see how it is when it is released before condemning it instantly.
If someone announced a perpetual motion machine that would revolutionize how energy is produced, you better damn well believe I'd bash on it before seeing it.
This is the same category - they are making claims that trump basic physics, so it gets bashed until proven otherwise.
How does playing a game over cloud computing (Something that already exists.) trump basic physics? Have you guys thought that maybe the box they give you to access it might have a bit of hardware acceleration/software on it that helps with reducing lag? Sorta like how you can get better adapters for your PC so your PC's connection has less lag?
You can do what? What?
You know, like an unobtanium flux-capictron to boost your jiggawatt hertz.
You guys are doing a lot of bashing on something before it's even come out/been used. My suggestion is to see how it is when it is released before condemning it instantly.
If someone announced a perpetual motion machine that would revolutionize how energy is produced, you better damn well believe I'd bash on it before seeing it.
This is the same category - they are making claims that trump basic physics, so it gets bashed until proven otherwise.
How does playing a game over cloud computing (Something that already exists.) trump basic physics? Have you guys thought that maybe the box they give you to access it might have a bit of hardware acceleration/software on it that helps with reducing lag? Sorta like how you can get better adapters for your PC so your PC's connection has less lag?
You can do what? What?
You know, like an unobtanium flux-capictron to boost your jiggawatt hertz.
Well, I guess if you reversed the polarity of the neutron flow...
geeze, you guys are all so negative. I personally am already looking forward to buying a villa on mars when they decide to expand their faster than light technology from games to travel.
Posts
I can see them doing a ton of business with the no-subscription rental model... Provided that this actually works they way they advertise. The whole "subject to capacity and availability and usage limits" thing sounds extremely silly goose for demos (let alone rentals!) though.
Hardcore gamers won't endure the performance. Casual gamers won't endure the cost. There is no market for OnLive.
I'd argue that there is a market for platform retails, which is effectively what this is. Platform and video game retails, purchased and delivered online, with the option of 'buying' a lifetime retail for a game if one so chooses. Anyone who thinks it'll become the main method of gaming for most gamers is fooling themselves, as is anyone who thinks there is no market for the idea.
To me, the main issues are whether they can provide a service that is palatable to play, and how much the varies aspects of the service will cost. So far, we don't have answers to either matter.
I really believe they intended to be bought out before now, thus their overreaction to Ryan [strike]Strout's[/strike] Shrout's column about the beta.
I imagine the saves/rentals will be deleted when your account is simply because otherwise no one would ever keep up an ongoing account; there's no financial incentive and in fact even those defending the model concede that doing so makes no sense for just about any potential customer. Unfortunately, OnLive has to attract some kind of consistent userbase to bring in somewhat steady revenue, or there's no way this will be sustainable. You might trust them not to do that by being dickheads. I do not, because if that would have involved creating a pricing model under which it MADE SENSE for their consumers to exhibit that kind of behavior in the first place.
Just Onlive? Because I'd say in the long term pretty much the complete opposite applies. I'd be prepared to bet that within my lifetime I'll see a generation of gamers for whom the idea of actually, gasp, owning a physical product of any kind is a quaint curiosity.
Read my book. (It has a robot in it.)
For those of you just joining us:
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
Because it is not always their choice? Generally it is the choice of the game's publisher, or at least that has been my understanding. It's not all about Halo and Metal Gear, you know. If, for example, Atlus or Square Enix were to jump on board and offer up some of their PS2 games, I don't think Sony would be in a position to stop that.
That's like MMOs deleting your characters when you unsubscribe, in order to provide more incentive to keep an ongoing account. They wouldn't do it, because such a policy would outrage and drive away customers, hurting the company far more than it could ever help them. Onlive is trying to pioneer a delivery mechanism with no exclusive content; they simply cannot afford to burn bridges like that.
And upon what, exactly, are you basing your that a consistent userbase is absolutely crucial? Yes, they have bandwidth and hardware costs. I'm just not seeing what factor is involved here that makes you think this is so completely financially ridiculous, yet isn't driving brick and mortar stores like Blockbuster out of business.
I agree that the input lag is positively atrocious there, and because of that OnLive looks to be unworkable even in a best-case scenario - But I'm guessing this thing isn't vaporware and will actually make it to market. They've had a closed beta going for a while now, and if folks were actually being scammed or the tech was completely unworkable, I'd assume at least one of them would say nuts to the NDA.
The few scraps of information that google yields from people in the beta seems to indicate that it's good only for slower paced games, as you'd expect. Twitch FPS games seem to be very 'meh' - I assume from input lag. It sounds like you could play them, but you really wouldn't want to.
So am I the only person who didn't have a problem with this?
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
I don't really feel greatly put off by it. It feels like a number of games with a software pointer that has a bit of lag, which I can adjust to.
OnLive supposedly has found a way to counter this, probably similar to the ways online games currently compensate for similar amounts of network lag
I don't think it will feel as responsive as running a game locally, but the entire product pitch here is that they're streaming you the video and accepting your input while reducing input lag as much as they've found possible.
I'm fairly certain this is one of those things that's kind of impossible to compensate for. How would they predict something like the user moving his mouse from one place to another in order to compensate for it?
Time travel
The way a game might do it is say, ok, Guy A shot Guy B but Guy B had moved by the time I received the data from Guy A. I'll just look back in time at where Guy B was 80ms ago and...oh look, Guy A hit him. Score.
No idea how you do this with a third party delay in the mix though.
If you can run the "cursor" type stuff locally, maybe they can use the current time travel methods to resolve hits and misses.
I want my gun to go BANG! when I fire, but if it takes 80ms or so to show blood spatter or a bullet hole, I think I might be able to live with that.
See, that's how games multiplayer games work that render locally. If everything has to render on another server, there is *no way* to compensate for any network lag. It's all just a video stream, remember.
3DS Friend Code: 2707-1614-5576
PAX Prime 2014 Buttoneering!
I don't see why people are so against this. This is a godsend for single player games (depending on the pricing of the games) for computers.
Is this system personally offensive or something? I just don't get it. Let it come out and try it.
It's not that the devs personally offended us or anything, it's that the system, knowing what we do now, isn't really that great of an idea for most releases that have high-end graphics, which are generally first person shooters that require quick reflexes. There's just no way to wave away the input lag.
Then this is a system the gaming community should want to thrive because devs might be forced to make games other than FPS.
Of course maybe not though, as we've seen how devs have reacted to the wii, which has succeeded yet hasn't derailed FPS.
I think you're giving this system too much credit if you're led to believe that it will have such an impact as to not only draw developers away from making first person shooters, but force them to do so.
How so? Do you know how cheap a video card can be and still do 720p gaming? Well under $100. And it won't give you either compression artifacts or lag. Neither will it require you to maintain a subscription to continue playing any game you bought. And it won't require huge amounts of bandwidth.
So this is for people that don't know any better. In a couple years CPUs could well have graphic capabilities that surpass this built right in. Then Onlive will be for no one.
Anyway, I still maintain that the fact that Activision hasn't bought these guys out so that they can use this tech for WoW means that it isn't worth much.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
If someone announced a perpetual motion machine that would revolutionize how energy is produced, you better damn well believe I'd bash on it before seeing it.
This is the same category - they are making claims that trump basic physics, so it gets bashed until proven otherwise.
Show me a 3D video card I can plug into my netbook and play 720p graphically-intensive games for under $100.
Now, I understand input lag, and I am skeptical how well this could work. But I also hope that in some way it does work because it could increase profits for game companies with the number of people who buy netbooks and laptops and wouldn't normally be able to play said game.
Right now, PC game developers need a way to get high quality games available to as many people as possible.
How does playing a game over cloud computing (Something that already exists.) trump basic physics? Have you guys thought that maybe the box they give you to access it might have a bit of hardware acceleration/software on it that helps with reducing lag? Sorta like how you can get better adapters for your PC so your PC's connection has less lag?
Honestly though were i to use this service, i'd be using it to get single player games that have short storylines or something like that or other non-multi games. I'd probably still have my main multiplayer games running off my own PC or all my favourite games at least. But for something like Bioshock 2, a game i regret purchasing for its lack of content for its price, i would rather just "rent it" over the net and play it that way on my TV if i could.
There is a fundamental difference between input lag and network lag. This has been said many times already in this thread, and it is key point as to why people are rightfully scoffing at this.
Yes which is why i said something about the hardware. You seemed to have missed that part though. Like i said, you guys are all bashing on something you as of yet, know basically nothing about. So it's all just a lot of pulling things out of asses at this point. I myself am excited about the future prospects of such a service/device and am looking forward to see how it works out, for better or worse. I tend to not formulate opinions on things i haven't even given a chance yet.
It could end up being shit. But if it isn't well, then that will be pretty cool.
What about the hardware?
If the rendering is being done server side, which it would have to be if you don't have a copy of the game or for their service to be worth a damn, then that box isn't going to help when it comes to input lag.
The fact remains it takes a certain amount of time for a signal to travel from your computer to their servers. No magic box is going to suddenly change how fast an electrical signal can travel.
Tofu wrote: Here be Littleboots, destroyer of threads and master of drunkposting.
You know, like an unobtanium flux-capictron to boost your jiggawatt hertz.