If it weren't for the monthly fee I'd be interested. As it is I'm not going to pay a monthly fee in order to have the option to pay more for some actual games, and then lose them were I stop paying the subs.
The tech sounds magic. The business model is simply not appealing to me.
Streaming content is okay, I can live without a permanent copy. But at full price?
Not happening.
zerothelegend on
Your heart will explode.
0
Options
Amikron DevaliaI didn't ask for this title.Registered Userregular
edited June 2010
That video of him being able to log in and just start a game was pretty impressive. Those that are not as into gaming (especially PC gaming) will love things like that, no installing, no wondering about this update or that update messing up how your gcard runs, etc.
I can see how this will appeal to a wide audience if it is done right, though the bit about Mass Effect 2 not being allowed to run on a Mac is pretty embarrassing.
According to the review it doesn't work over WiFi.
What is there target market with this thing, then? Serious gamers are likely to want to buy the game and OWN it. Less serious gamers are apt to not want to plug in an Ethernet cable to their laptops when they want to play...
Cameron_Talley on
Switch Friend Code: SW-4598-4278-8875
3DS Friend Code: 0404-6826-4588 PM if you add.
According to the review it doesn't work over WiFi.
What is there target market with this thing, then? Serious gamers are likely to want to buy the game and OWN it. Less serious gamers are apt to not want to plug in an Ethernet cable to their laptops when they want to play...
Shitty ADSL from AT&T caused this.
It is definitely noticeable, but I quickly got used to it. I played through the entirety of F.E.A.R. 2 with this latency and it didn't bother me. However, if you have a local copy of F.E.A.R. 2 running and switch back and forth, it takes a moment to adjust to the OnLive version.
Remember when LCD screens first came out and they initially had latency? Some screens even sported a gamer mode that would make the screen more responsive when enabled. OnLive feels like playing on one of those TVs -- it is most definitely playable for me, but if you're used to zero latency, it will feel weird.
Something that was interesting to me is that when I first heard about OnLive, I thought it would be perfect for games like World of Goo while FPS games would be unplayable. After having actually tried it, I find the opposite to be true. Games where you need to track a cursor are very difficult to control with any latency, while I found it easier to get into 3D games like Batman, Borderlands, and F.E.A.R. 2.
When I looked at F.E.A.R. 2, I made a weird discovery -- the OnLive version is definitely not running at maximum detail as I had originally assumed. I asked OnLive about this and they said that they don't necessarily max out the settings, they choose what they feel is a good balance.
Something that was interesting to me is that when I first heard about OnLive, I thought it would be perfect for games like World of Goo while FPS games would be unplayable. After having actually tried it, I find the opposite to be true. Games where you need to track a cursor are very difficult to control with any latency, while I found it easier to get into 3D games like Batman, Borderlands, and F.E.A.R. 2.
Well that would explain a lot.
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I assume it's like playing a FPS online- you can adjust your actions to the lag somewhat by doing things a bit sooner. It's there, but it's doable. On the other hand, moving a cursor and having it lag is just irritating, especially in a game like WoG where you're sometimes expected to react quickly.
that video on Wolfire of them firing up the Unreal Tournament 3 demo in seconds and jumping into a game of deathmatch is really impressive
I'm looking forward to checking this out once my account is ready. It sucks that you can't play over WiFi, since this would be perfect for laptops, but I can understand the limitation
Wow, no wifi? That really stinks considering most PCs these days are laptops which are connected to the internet via wifi. That's going to limit their target demographic a LOT. Now wired won't be a problem if they do the microconsole since I can plug it into my router 2 shelves higher with no issue, though it would take the last port available.
ArcSyn on
0
Options
citizen059hello my name is citizenI'm from the InternetRegistered Userregular
edited June 2010
Yeah, the no wifi thing stinks, but the 5mbps requirement stinks more. For me anyway.
Because of budget issues I'm dropping from cable to DSL this month and I probably won't be able to use OnLive anymore. :P
Couscous, that review is correct. As I mentioned from my time in the beta, they don't run the games at max settings, probably to keep strain down on their machines that also have to encode the video.
The fact that they don't run things at max makes the service less appealing, in my opinion.
brynstar on
Xbox Live: Xander51
PSN ID : Xander51 Steam ID : Xander51
0
Options
citizen059hello my name is citizenI'm from the InternetRegistered Userregular
edited June 2010
I think it's going to be appealing for those types who want to play PC games but don't want to spend money on the high end systems. For the "regular" PC gamers the experience won't measure up, but for a lot of people it might be just right.
They said WiFi play would be enabled at a later date. My assumption is they're trying to control a lot of variables for their launch to guarantee things go as smoothly as possible.
I think it's going to be appealing for those types who want to play PC games but don't want to spend money on the high end systems. For the "regular" PC gamers the experience won't measure up, but for a lot of people it might be just right.
Yeah, but a lot of games run just fine on non-"gaming" PCs with lowered settings. Without having to pay for a subscription.
They said WiFi play would be enabled at a later date. My assumption is they're trying to control a lot of variables for their launch to guarantee things go as smoothly as possible.
probably to keep strain down on their machines that also have to encode the video.
Didn't they say they had custom hardware made to handle the video encoding?
Yes, supposedly their video encoding is completely hardware. That's how they can do it so fast.
I've just always wondered what kind of GPU computing power they're running to be able to render multiple instances of these games. Cause you still need a smooth frame rate or else all the super fast wizzy video compression in the world won't help with smoothness.
LittleBoots on
Tofu wrote: Here be Littleboots, destroyer of threads and master of drunkposting.
I think it's going to be appealing for those types who want to play PC games but don't want to spend money on the high end systems. For the "regular" PC gamers the experience won't measure up, but for a lot of people it might be just right.
Yeah, but a lot of games run just fine on non-"gaming" PCs with lowered settings. Without having to pay for a subscription.
This.
OnLive is essentially built on three main pillars (As I see it):
A) Reduced Lag Gaming
Better Graphics Than You Can Get On Your Current PC
C) A Smaller Cost Than Upgrading Your PC
From what I've heard, OnLive makes absolutely no sense because the three don't work in concert. The lag is bearable, and the graphics are medium, and it's for a lowish extra cost....but I could play a game with almost no lag, with the graphics on medium, without upgrading a lower end PC, with absolutely no extra cost.
In essence, unless OnLive can run their stuff on super-duper-zomgs-high graphical levels, I can only see OnLive working for people who can't play most games on their computer (Mac users, etc) or people who believe conventional wisdom that you need a 2000 dollar computer to play games on their lowest settings.
SimpsonsParadox on
0
Options
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
edited June 2010
What kills OnLive for me is paying full price for games I don't own
I mean, I do that with Steam, but at least I have something on my computer
But to pay monthly for OnLive, plus pay the same amount for games, plus not be able to play them over Wifi, plus not being able to play them on their highest settings?
What advantages are left, at that point? Why wouldn't I just buy a new computer at that point? At least then the illusion that I own these video games is more convincing
So that's just getting worse and worse for this service. So much for the "run on anything" type of ideal environment they were putting out there..
Well, most laptops and desktops, no matter how cheap, have two cores now. I don't understand why it needs one here, unless decoding the video is that intense.
However, it means that my computer can't run their stream of UT3, but I can play the actual version at about 30FPS on high.
elliotw2 on
XBL:Elliotw3|PSN:elliotw2
0
Options
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
edited June 2010
I still have hope for their streaming tech they were touting, though
If that looks as good as it's supposed to, I'd like to see that proliferate to Netflix and Youtube and such
I think it's going to be appealing for those types who want to play PC games but don't want to spend money on the high end systems. For the "regular" PC gamers the experience won't measure up, but for a lot of people it might be just right.
Yeah, but a lot of games run just fine on non-"gaming" PCs with lowered settings. Without having to pay for a subscription.
This.
OnLive is essentially built on three main pillars (As I see it):
A) Reduced Lag Gaming
Better Graphics Than You Can Get On Your Current PC
C) A Smaller Cost Than Upgrading Your PC
From what I've heard, OnLive makes absolutely no sense because the three don't work in concert. The lag is bearable, and the graphics are medium, and it's for a lowish extra cost....but I could play a game with almost no lag, with the graphics on medium, without upgrading a lower end PC, with absolutely no extra cost.
In essence, unless OnLive can run their stuff on super-duper-zomgs-high graphical levels, I can only see OnLive working for people who can't play most games on their computer (Mac users, etc) or people who believe conventional wisdom that you need a 2000 dollar computer to play games on their lowest settings.
D) Pressing "Play" and having the game work immediately instead of installing and solving compatibility issues and upgrading hardware and downloading patches and on and on and on.
E) Lack of piracy and standardized hardware making the platform attractive for developers.
All the things PC gamers have grown used too that makes the hobby so difficult for console gamers to grasp, and the platform so difficult to develop for.
D) Pressing "Play" and having the game work immediately instead of installing and solving compatibility issues and upgrading hardware and downloading patches and on and on and on.
E) Lack of piracy and standardized hardware making the platform attractive for developers.
All the things PC gamers have grown used too that makes the hobby so difficult for console gamers to grasp, and the platform so difficult to develop for.
I have had more streaming issues with video services than I've had with patches. You do realize that most patches on PC work *just* like they do on Consoles now, where you just get a little reminder which you click and immediately download? And that's assuming you don't just use steam, which does it automatically. Ditto with compatibility, which is really only a problem for very old unsupported games, which is exactly the type of game OnLive would drop support of. And a third ditto for installing. You click "next" a few times. You know. Sort of like you do on a PS3. Or an Xbox, if you chose to do so. Unless you do it on Steam, at which point you click a few times to download a game, and then click once to install it.
And 'developer support' won't make or break OnLive if it doesn't have a good service to begin with.
And, finally, the last part of your post. It smacks of someone who once had a bad experience playing Starcraft on Windows 2000 and can't possibly understand that PC gaming has moved far beyond those old cliches that people seem to love tossing up. There are items that separate PC gaming from console (and, by extension, OnLive) without us needing to dive back into the old "LOL INSTALLING AND PATCHES AND STUFFS" that became outdated several years ago and certainly isn't climbing any closer to relevancy.
-edit- A quick note: Do you have anything to back up 'difficult to develop for'? It seems to me that the large number of titles at all price points would point otherwise, as well as the huge number of freeware games out there.
SimpsonsParadox on
0
Options
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
edited June 2010
... so why not play on a console then?
Second half of E is a non-point, because the games are still going to written for the PC platform in general, not Onlive specifically. And you're assuming that they're going to dedicated the same amount of hardware spec for every game, which is just plain silly.
D) Pressing "Play" and having the game work immediately instead of installing and solving compatibility issues and upgrading hardware and downloading patches and on and on and on.
E) Lack of piracy and standardized hardware making the platform attractive for developers.
All the things PC gamers have grown used too that makes the hobby so difficult for console gamers to grasp, and the platform so difficult to develop for.
I have had more streaming issues with video services than I've had with patches. You do realize that most patches on PC work *just* like they do on Consoles now, where you just get a little reminder which you click and immediately download? And that's assuming you don't just use steam, which does it automatically. Ditto with compatibility, which is really only a problem for very old unsupported games, which is exactly the type of game OnLive would drop support of. And a third ditto for installing. You click "next" a few times. You know. Sort of like you do on a PS3. Or an Xbox, if you chose to do so. Unless you do it on Steam, at which point you click a few times to download a game, and then click once to install it.
And 'developer support' won't make or break OnLive if it doesn't have a good service to begin with.
And, finally, the last part of your post. It smacks of someone who once had a bad experience playing Starcraft on Windows 2000 and can't possibly understand that PC gaming has moved far beyond those old cliches that people seem to love tossing up. There are items that separate PC gaming from console (and, by extension, OnLive) without us needing to dive back into the old "LOL INSTALLING AND PATCHES AND STUFFS" that became outdated several years ago and certainly isn't climbing any closer to relevancy.
I play PC games, buy them, and I love them. But there are good reasons why console game sales are so much higher than PC game sales, and many of them are things hardcore PC gamers don't even think about. The price of a good gaming PC shoots up if you don't know how to build your own system, and maintaining that system requires more knowledge than maintaining a console. OnLive would be a boon for people who don't have the basic knowledge hardcore PC gamers take for granted, and I suspect that's the market they'll be targeting.
I'm not saying OnLive will be a great service (I certainly won't be buying it), but the 'easy to use' aspect is an important part of what they're selling. There are good reasons why the most successful platforms of this generation have been the most idiot-proof.
If the service takes off, there's also no particular reason why developers would continue to put their PC games on Steam. Why eat a 90% piracy rate when you don't have too? Of course, that's a big if, and OnLive's marketing so far has been dismal to say the least.
D) Pressing "Play" and having the game work immediately instead of installing and solving compatibility issues and upgrading hardware and downloading patches and on and on and on.
E) Lack of piracy and standardized hardware making the platform attractive for developers.
All the things PC gamers have grown used too that makes the hobby so difficult for console gamers to grasp, and the platform so difficult to develop for.
I have had more streaming issues with video services than I've had with patches. You do realize that most patches on PC work *just* like they do on Consoles now, where you just get a little reminder which you click and immediately download? And that's assuming you don't just use steam, which does it automatically. Ditto with compatibility, which is really only a problem for very old unsupported games, which is exactly the type of game OnLive would drop support of. And a third ditto for installing. You click "next" a few times. You know. Sort of like you do on a PS3. Or an Xbox, if you chose to do so. Unless you do it on Steam, at which point you click a few times to download a game, and then click once to install it.
And 'developer support' won't make or break OnLive if it doesn't have a good service to begin with.
And, finally, the last part of your post. It smacks of someone who once had a bad experience playing Starcraft on Windows 2000 and can't possibly understand that PC gaming has moved far beyond those old cliches that people seem to love tossing up. There are items that separate PC gaming from console (and, by extension, OnLive) without us needing to dive back into the old "LOL INSTALLING AND PATCHES AND STUFFS" that became outdated several years ago and certainly isn't climbing any closer to relevancy.
I play PC games, buy them, and I love them. But there are good reasons why console game sales are so much higher than PC game sales, and many of them are things hardcore PC gamers don't even think about. The price of a good gaming PC shoots up if you don't know how to build your own system, and maintaining that system requires more knowledge than maintaining a console. OnLive would be a boon for people who don't have the basic knowledge hardcore PC gamers take for granted, and I suspect that's the market they'll be targeting.
I'm not saying OnLive will be a great service (I certainly won't be buying it), but the 'easy to use' aspect is an important part of what they're selling. There are good reasons why the most successful platforms of this generation have been the most idiot-proof.
PC's are remarkably easy to maintain now, all you really have to do is stick a good AV software on it, and watch that you don't spill anything in it. You don't have to do any weird shit like check that the fans are properly calibrated, or that the GPU gets reinserted once a week. Again, patching, buying, and downloading a game is remarkably simple now, usually just clicking two buttons, or doing nothing at all if it's Steam. Gaming PC's are cheap even if you don't know how to build them, just shop around. You can usually get pretty good computers for less than $1000.
If the service takes off, there's also no particular reason why developers would continue to put their PC games on Steam. Why eat a 90% piracy rate when you don't have too? Of course, that's a big if, and OnLive's marketing so far has been dismal to say the least.
Well, Steam's taken off, and disc releases still happen. I really doubt that retail sales of games will ever stop.
Hmmmm. Now that I think about it, if Onlive only works for action games and not anything else and if the graphics aren't exactly great, it's not going to be that easy for Onlive to compete against the consoles.
Also you would think that they could do the curser on the client side somehow. But maybe I'm missing something.
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I play PC games, buy them, and I love them. But there are good reasons why console game sales are so much higher than PC game sales, and many of them are things hardcore PC gamers don't even think about. The price of a good gaming PC shoots up if you don't know how to build your own system, and maintaining that system requires more knowledge than maintaining a console. OnLive would be a boon for people who don't have the basic knowledge hardcore PC gamers take for granted, and I suspect that's the market they'll be targeting.
I'm not saying OnLive will be a great service (I certainly won't be buying it), but the 'easy to use' aspect is an important part of what they're selling. There are good reasons why the most successful platforms of this generation have been the most idiot-proof.
If the service takes off, there's also no particular reason why developers would continue to put their PC games on Steam. Why eat a 90% piracy rate when you don't have too? Of course, that's a big if, and OnLive's marketing so far has been dismal to say the least.
Yes, the price of an exceptional gaming PC shoots up if you can't build one yourself. I know. I can't build one myself. I got an exceptional gaming rig for a tad under one grand, and, after talking to some friends who do know how to build computer, I apparently got jipped pretty badly. OnLive would be great for people who only have a passing knowledge of PCs. In fact, these are the people who would only be able to play Crysis on, say, medium...which is exactly what they'll get on OnLive. Except with a monthly fee. And a silly ToS. And for 10 dollars more per game.
Easy to use is an exceptional reason to not play the PC. In fact, pop-n-play is perhaps one of the few things I will say works universally better on a console than a PC. Which is why you'd just get a console instead of OnLive, especially since nearly everything *but* weird, esoteric PC games that appeal to hardcore PC gamers already comes out on a console.
A quick aside, to set up this next part: I like statistics. I'm going to major in statistics. So, as a natural progression, I hate it when people make up statistics. This is also linked in to the fact that I hate it when people mislead me. So when you say that if OnLive takes off people will stop putting games on Steam to stop eating 90% piracy, I start to dislike you. Here's a rundown:
A) 90%. Really. Every PC game released has 90% piracy. No. I'll be nicer to you. Try to prove, on average, that PC games have a 90% piracy rate. That's being incredibly fair to you. I could try to make you prove that any piracy rate leads to a decline in sales.
Piracy period. When you pirate a PC game, it's hard to play it on official servers, or, if you release it on Steam, to play it at all considering Steam has some pretty decent DRM. More importantly, it's widely accepted as non-BS DRM, taking one of the major reasons people pirate (As a misguided and stupid form of hacktivism) off the table. Of course, people will still pirate, but those people probably wouldn't go out and buy the game if it was OnLive. They'd just find a way to cheat OnLive.
C) The (implied) thought that the only reason developers put games on Steam is because of no other alternative: "Oh, if someone else could solve piracy, people would flock from PC gaming!" There's already platforms that do that. They're called consoles. The reason people don't abandon PC gaming is because, gasp, it sells! It doesn't get the huge numbers on charts that console games get, but that's more because Steam doesn't release sales numbers than other factors. Heck, just a few moments ago I looked up the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. page on Steam. It's sold 2 million copies.
Without turning this into a piracy debate, let's just say that my opinions on piracy aren't important here. What we can all agree on is that most publishers consider piracy to be a huge issue, and theirs is the vote that matters when deciding which games get developed for which platforms.
Yes, if somebody produces a platform that makes PC gaming easy to use and relatively pirate-free, developers will flock to that platform. What exactly do you think has made developers flock to consoles and handhelds in the last decade?
As for why people would choose OnLive over a new console - probably because they already own a computer of some kind, and $300 is a lot of money.
For what it's worth (I didn't see this mentioned yet) to those of you worried about the lack of 'high settings' graphics, they did say that upon initial release, the games would be scaled back and would not be streamed in full 1080p HD, but that it would be coming later.
While it might seem bandwidth intensive, those wishing to game in standard def only require a 1.5Mbps connection, and the game will be playable at 60fps. Later, they’ll be unveiling a 1080p update, which will require a 4-5Mbps internet connection.
Read: OnLive Coming To United States In June [Cloud-Computing Based Gaming Service Coming June 17th for $15 Monthly Fee, Cost of Games Not Included] » TFTS – Technology, Gadgets & Curiosities
So I think it's just a matter of time, really. And honestly, from the videos I've been seeing of it, I have to say it's looking more promising than I think most of us really expected given current consumer bandwidth limitations.
Now, if they'd just hurry the hell up and activate my account, I'd know for sure how well it works here in the Midwest, since all the videos I keep seeing seem to be from California.
A quick aside, to set up this next part: I like statistics. I'm going to major in statistics. So, as a natural progression, I hate it when people make up statistics. This is also linked in to the fact that I hate it when people mislead me. So when you say that if OnLive takes off people will stop putting games on Steam to stop eating 90% piracy, I start to dislike you. Here's a rundown:
A) 90%. Really. Every PC game released has 90% piracy. No. I'll be nicer to you. Try to prove, on average, that PC games have a 90% piracy rate. That's being incredibly fair to you. I could try to make you prove that any piracy rate leads to a decline in sales.
Piracy period. When you pirate a PC game, it's hard to play it on official servers, or, if you release it on Steam, to play it at all considering Steam has some pretty decent DRM. More importantly, it's widely accepted as non-BS DRM, taking one of the major reasons people pirate (As a misguided and stupid form of hacktivism) off the table. Of course, people will still pirate, but those people probably wouldn't go out and buy the game if it was OnLive. They'd just find a way to cheat OnLive.
C) The (implied) thought that the only reason developers put games on Steam is because of no other alternative: "Oh, if someone else could solve piracy, people would flock from PC gaming!" There's already platforms that do that. They're called consoles. The reason people don't abandon PC gaming is because, gasp, it sells! It doesn't get the huge numbers on charts that console games get, but that's more because Steam doesn't release sales numbers than other factors. Heck, just a few moments ago I looked up the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. page on Steam. It's sold 2 million copies.
A) Popular indie games tend to have about a 90% piracy rate. World of Goo did, and the "Humble Bundle" a few weeks ago also had some absurdly large percentage considering how cheap it was. There was that StarDock DOTA-style game where the online servers overloaded before the game was actually released due to piracy. I don't know about more mainstream stuff, but I remember that Unreal Tournament 3 had some rate that was huge enough for the developer to cry bloody murder (and get ridiculed like crazy for it). I wouldn't be surprised if it was way over 50% for the average mainstream retail game.
I've heard that most Steam games aren't actually hard to pirate; hence why some publishers insist on having their own stupid intrusive DRM layer on top of Steam. Agreed otherwise.
Unreal Tournament 3 had some rate that was huge enough for the developer to cry bloody murder (and get ridiculed like crazy for it).
I think they cried about piracy hurting their sales, until the console sales numbers came in and were just as bad, if not worse. Piracy didn't make UT3 a sales failure, Epic did.
D) Pressing "Play" and having the game work immediately instead of installing and solving compatibility issues and upgrading hardware and downloading patches and on and on and on.
(snip)
All the things PC gamers have grown used too that makes the hobby so difficult for console gamers to grasp, and the platform so difficult to develop for.
Honestly, these days I find playing PC games almost less of a hassle than console games. Having to install the game is about as complicated as the 360 prompting you for your save location (except you only need to do it once, rather than every time you start the game) and solving compatibility issues is a one-game-a-year affair. On the other hand, my loading times are negligible, most of the time I don't need to find and put in the game disc just because I played a different game since the last time and my patching speed isn't tied to whatever crappy bandwidth MS/Sony are willing to allocate me.
I could see that argument being made with cartridge consoles, where you literally don't have to do anything, but the modern consoles have gotten so fiddly in their attempt to diversify the experience they're not really any simpler than PCs (handling profiles on the 360 just feels way too fiddly when all you want to do is fire up a quick Indie game).
TetraNitroCubaneThe DjinneratorAt the bottom of a bottleRegistered Userregular
edited June 2010
While most gamers are prone to an overabundance of unreasonable snark when it comes to untested technology and the promises thereof, I'd say that the incredulity expressed by many parties regarding OnLive was well warranted. This kind of tech is beyond reasonable expectations of our time, so to see it working with even a modicum of reliability is surprising.
Seriously, many people more qualified than I expressed disbelief that this would be possible. Experts in video compression balked at the idea of 1 ms 720p compression alone, and that's not even taking into account the numerous speed of light arguments.
So, yes, there was snark. But it was pretty reasonable snark given the claims. Huge kudos, however, to OnLive for seeming to make it work so far in spite of the doubts. Reports still feel thin, but I gather they're doing a slow roll-out.
You're right. This thing had everyone (myself included) being skeptic. My biggest worry with the technology is that their target audience might not be big enough, or that they might be unable to shake off the mantra.
Worst case, I'm sure a company like Gametap will buy them if Onlive fails.
Problem is, that scepticism is well justified. It's just not possible to do any gaming that requires half decent response times (aka, almost every game except strategy games)
Unless we can figure out how to send information faster than the speed of light this system simply isn't going to take off. (for fps, racing etc etc)
GrimReaper on
PSN | Steam
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
Posts
Excellent impressions by Wolfire, there's even comparison shots and a YT video.
http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/06/Thoughts-on-OnLive
The tech sounds magic. The business model is simply not appealing to me.
Not happening.
I can see how this will appeal to a wide audience if it is done right, though the bit about Mass Effect 2 not being allowed to run on a Mac is pretty embarrassing.
Twitter
According to the review it doesn't work over WiFi.
What is there target market with this thing, then? Serious gamers are likely to want to buy the game and OWN it. Less serious gamers are apt to not want to plug in an Ethernet cable to their laptops when they want to play...
3DS Friend Code: 0404-6826-4588 PM if you add.
Shitty ADSL from AT&T caused this.
Wouldn't that be max for everything?
Well that would explain a lot.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I'm looking forward to checking this out once my account is ready. It sucks that you can't play over WiFi, since this would be perfect for laptops, but I can understand the limitation
Because of budget issues I'm dropping from cable to DSL this month and I probably won't be able to use OnLive anymore. :P
The fact that they don't run things at max makes the service less appealing, in my opinion.
PSN ID : Xander51 Steam ID : Xander51
Didn't they say they had custom hardware made to handle the video encoding?
Yes, supposedly their video encoding is completely hardware. That's how they can do it so fast.
I've just always wondered what kind of GPU computing power they're running to be able to render multiple instances of these games. Cause you still need a smooth frame rate or else all the super fast wizzy video compression in the world won't help with smoothness.
Tofu wrote: Here be Littleboots, destroyer of threads and master of drunkposting.
This.
OnLive is essentially built on three main pillars (As I see it):
A) Reduced Lag Gaming
C) A Smaller Cost Than Upgrading Your PC
From what I've heard, OnLive makes absolutely no sense because the three don't work in concert. The lag is bearable, and the graphics are medium, and it's for a lowish extra cost....but I could play a game with almost no lag, with the graphics on medium, without upgrading a lower end PC, with absolutely no extra cost.
In essence, unless OnLive can run their stuff on super-duper-zomgs-high graphical levels, I can only see OnLive working for people who can't play most games on their computer (Mac users, etc) or people who believe conventional wisdom that you need a 2000 dollar computer to play games on their lowest settings.
I mean, I do that with Steam, but at least I have something on my computer
But to pay monthly for OnLive, plus pay the same amount for games, plus not be able to play them over Wifi, plus not being able to play them on their highest settings?
What advantages are left, at that point? Why wouldn't I just buy a new computer at that point? At least then the illusion that I own these video games is more convincing
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
Going to try this out and post back some thoughts. Though I gotta grab a network cable and hook it up now.
EDIT: Just saw this when Onlive's client wouldn't start on my wife's netbook:
So that's just getting worse and worse for this service. So much for the "run on anything" type of ideal environment they were putting out there..
Well, most laptops and desktops, no matter how cheap, have two cores now. I don't understand why it needs one here, unless decoding the video is that intense.
However, it means that my computer can't run their stream of UT3, but I can play the actual version at about 30FPS on high.
If that looks as good as it's supposed to, I'd like to see that proliferate to Netflix and Youtube and such
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
D) Pressing "Play" and having the game work immediately instead of installing and solving compatibility issues and upgrading hardware and downloading patches and on and on and on.
E) Lack of piracy and standardized hardware making the platform attractive for developers.
All the things PC gamers have grown used too that makes the hobby so difficult for console gamers to grasp, and the platform so difficult to develop for.
I have had more streaming issues with video services than I've had with patches. You do realize that most patches on PC work *just* like they do on Consoles now, where you just get a little reminder which you click and immediately download? And that's assuming you don't just use steam, which does it automatically. Ditto with compatibility, which is really only a problem for very old unsupported games, which is exactly the type of game OnLive would drop support of. And a third ditto for installing. You click "next" a few times. You know. Sort of like you do on a PS3. Or an Xbox, if you chose to do so. Unless you do it on Steam, at which point you click a few times to download a game, and then click once to install it.
And 'developer support' won't make or break OnLive if it doesn't have a good service to begin with.
And, finally, the last part of your post. It smacks of someone who once had a bad experience playing Starcraft on Windows 2000 and can't possibly understand that PC gaming has moved far beyond those old cliches that people seem to love tossing up. There are items that separate PC gaming from console (and, by extension, OnLive) without us needing to dive back into the old "LOL INSTALLING AND PATCHES AND STUFFS" that became outdated several years ago and certainly isn't climbing any closer to relevancy.
-edit- A quick note: Do you have anything to back up 'difficult to develop for'? It seems to me that the large number of titles at all price points would point otherwise, as well as the huge number of freeware games out there.
Second half of E is a non-point, because the games are still going to written for the PC platform in general, not Onlive specifically. And you're assuming that they're going to dedicated the same amount of hardware spec for every game, which is just plain silly.
I play PC games, buy them, and I love them. But there are good reasons why console game sales are so much higher than PC game sales, and many of them are things hardcore PC gamers don't even think about. The price of a good gaming PC shoots up if you don't know how to build your own system, and maintaining that system requires more knowledge than maintaining a console. OnLive would be a boon for people who don't have the basic knowledge hardcore PC gamers take for granted, and I suspect that's the market they'll be targeting.
I'm not saying OnLive will be a great service (I certainly won't be buying it), but the 'easy to use' aspect is an important part of what they're selling. There are good reasons why the most successful platforms of this generation have been the most idiot-proof.
If the service takes off, there's also no particular reason why developers would continue to put their PC games on Steam. Why eat a 90% piracy rate when you don't have too? Of course, that's a big if, and OnLive's marketing so far has been dismal to say the least.
Well, Steam's taken off, and disc releases still happen. I really doubt that retail sales of games will ever stop.
Also you would think that they could do the curser on the client side somehow. But maybe I'm missing something.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Yes, the price of an exceptional gaming PC shoots up if you can't build one yourself. I know. I can't build one myself. I got an exceptional gaming rig for a tad under one grand, and, after talking to some friends who do know how to build computer, I apparently got jipped pretty badly. OnLive would be great for people who only have a passing knowledge of PCs. In fact, these are the people who would only be able to play Crysis on, say, medium...which is exactly what they'll get on OnLive. Except with a monthly fee. And a silly ToS. And for 10 dollars more per game.
Easy to use is an exceptional reason to not play the PC. In fact, pop-n-play is perhaps one of the few things I will say works universally better on a console than a PC. Which is why you'd just get a console instead of OnLive, especially since nearly everything *but* weird, esoteric PC games that appeal to hardcore PC gamers already comes out on a console.
A quick aside, to set up this next part: I like statistics. I'm going to major in statistics. So, as a natural progression, I hate it when people make up statistics. This is also linked in to the fact that I hate it when people mislead me. So when you say that if OnLive takes off people will stop putting games on Steam to stop eating 90% piracy, I start to dislike you. Here's a rundown:
A) 90%. Really. Every PC game released has 90% piracy. No. I'll be nicer to you. Try to prove, on average, that PC games have a 90% piracy rate. That's being incredibly fair to you. I could try to make you prove that any piracy rate leads to a decline in sales.
C) The (implied) thought that the only reason developers put games on Steam is because of no other alternative: "Oh, if someone else could solve piracy, people would flock from PC gaming!" There's already platforms that do that. They're called consoles. The reason people don't abandon PC gaming is because, gasp, it sells! It doesn't get the huge numbers on charts that console games get, but that's more because Steam doesn't release sales numbers than other factors. Heck, just a few moments ago I looked up the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. page on Steam. It's sold 2 million copies.
Yes, if somebody produces a platform that makes PC gaming easy to use and relatively pirate-free, developers will flock to that platform. What exactly do you think has made developers flock to consoles and handhelds in the last decade?
As for why people would choose OnLive over a new console - probably because they already own a computer of some kind, and $300 is a lot of money.
http://www.onlive.com/support/performance
Also, from an article about Onlive:
http://nexus404.com/Blog/2010/03/10/onlive-coming-united-states-june-cloudcomputing-based-gaming-service-coming-june-17th-15-monthly-fee-cost-games-included/
So I think it's just a matter of time, really. And honestly, from the videos I've been seeing of it, I have to say it's looking more promising than I think most of us really expected given current consumer bandwidth limitations.
Now, if they'd just hurry the hell up and activate my account, I'd know for sure how well it works here in the Midwest, since all the videos I keep seeing seem to be from California.
A) Popular indie games tend to have about a 90% piracy rate. World of Goo did, and the "Humble Bundle" a few weeks ago also had some absurdly large percentage considering how cheap it was. There was that StarDock DOTA-style game where the online servers overloaded before the game was actually released due to piracy. I don't know about more mainstream stuff, but I remember that Unreal Tournament 3 had some rate that was huge enough for the developer to cry bloody murder (and get ridiculed like crazy for it). I wouldn't be surprised if it was way over 50% for the average mainstream retail game.
C) Yep! :-)
I could see that argument being made with cartridge consoles, where you literally don't have to do anything, but the modern consoles have gotten so fiddly in their attempt to diversify the experience they're not really any simpler than PCs (handling profiles on the 360 just feels way too fiddly when all you want to do is fire up a quick Indie game).
Twitter
Seriously, many people more qualified than I expressed disbelief that this would be possible. Experts in video compression balked at the idea of 1 ms 720p compression alone, and that's not even taking into account the numerous speed of light arguments.
So, yes, there was snark. But it was pretty reasonable snark given the claims. Huge kudos, however, to OnLive for seeming to make it work so far in spite of the doubts. Reports still feel thin, but I gather they're doing a slow roll-out.
Worst case, I'm sure a company like Gametap will buy them if Onlive fails.
Twitter
Unless we can figure out how to send information faster than the speed of light this system simply isn't going to take off. (for fps, racing etc etc)
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.