It boggles my mind why they require a dual-core processor and a 1280x720 resolution for a flash stream.
Well, I don't know about your experience with Youtube, but 720p/1080p videos are choppy and slow on my single core P4. A netbook would be even worse than my computer at it
elliotw2 on
XBL:Elliotw3|PSN:elliotw2
0
Options
TetraNitroCubaneThe DjinneratorAt the bottom of a bottleRegistered Userregular
edited June 2010
So it keeps sounding like FPS and action games are the ones that work well (input lag wise), where strategy games and 'pointer-based' games (i.e., World of Goo) are suffering in the lag department. I keep wondering if it's because people are playing FPS games with gamepads. I know all the demos I saw of the service were done with gamepads, up to and including Crysis.
Maybe I'm being a curmudgeon, but I'd assume that input lag with a keyboard/mouse setup would be much more notable than with a gamepad.
It boggles my mind why they require a dual-core processor and a 1280x720 resolution for a flash stream.
Well, I don't know about your experience with Youtube, but 720p/1080p videos are choppy and slow on my single core P4. A netbook would be even worse than my computer at it
Pretty much. On my netbook (N280 1.6GHz Atom with 2GB of RAM) anything larger than the standard youtube video window and 360 resolution runs pretty choppy. Then again, since this is all being compressed and streamed to me, you would think they would detect what your computer should be capable of and scale it down appropriately. Obviously if I'm running on a netbook I wouldn't expect 720p HD graphics. The resolution of the 10" screen only goes up to 1024x600 as it is.
Either way, in regards to the wifi and cable restrictions, something would be better than the nothing I'm getting right now. I can understand that they are trying to make sure the experience is a positive one, but with all the restrictions they are placing on the service, they are imo creating a worse image of the service than just letting us try to use it on wifi and single-core computers.
zillions of benefits of PC games other than great graphics
Like?
I listed them already, but like being able to play flight sims or RTS games or good turn based strategy games or some RPGs or aim with a mouse and keyboard or play on servers with more than 32 people or be able to alt+tab back and forth with a strategy guide or a website or...
etc. All of the people posting in the threads for PC only games aren't just hanging out there because they want a resolution higher than 720p, man.
It boggles my mind why they require a dual-core processor and a 1280x720 resolution for a flash stream.
Well, I don't know about your experience with Youtube, but 720p/1080p videos are choppy and slow on my single core P4. A netbook would be even worse than my computer at it
Netbooks are computers with a screen size under 13 inches, as far as I know. Lots of netbooks that fit the bill can play 720p Youtube videos.
It boggles my mind why they require a dual-core processor and a 1280x720 resolution for a flash stream.
Well, I don't know about your experience with Youtube, but 720p/1080p videos are choppy and slow on my single core P4. A netbook would be even worse than my computer at it
Pretty much. On my netbook (N280 1.6GHz Atom with 2GB of RAM) anything larger than the standard youtube video window and 360 resolution runs pretty choppy. Then again, since this is all being compressed and streamed to me, you would think they would detect what your computer should be capable of and scale it down appropriately. Obviously if I'm running on a netbook I wouldn't expect 720p HD graphics. The resolution of the 10" screen only goes up to 1024x600 as it is.
Either way, in regards to the wifi and cable restrictions, something would be better than the nothing I'm getting right now. I can understand that they are trying to make sure the experience is a positive one, but with all the restrictions they are placing on the service, they are imo creating a worse image of the service than just letting us try to use it on wifi and single-core computers.
Something's wrong with your computer then. My netbook is an 8.9" with an N270 and I can watch widescreen 480p videos on Youtube with no slowdowns at all.
Impersonator on
0
Options
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
edited June 2010
I'm still pretty stoked that it works at all
Their tech must not be total bullshit, as so many in this thread have proclaimed
It boggles my mind why they require a dual-core processor and a 1280x720 resolution for a flash stream.
Well, I don't know about your experience with Youtube, but 720p/1080p videos are choppy and slow on my single core P4. A netbook would be even worse than my computer at it
The latest version of flash supports GPUs, which allows for smooth playback of HD video with very little CPU usage.
I listed them already, but like being able to play flight sims or RTS games or good turn based strategy games or some RPGs or aim with a mouse and keyboard or play on servers with more than 32 people or be able to alt+tab back and forth with a strategy guide or a website or...
So basically shit casuals don't give a shit about.
I listed them already, but like being able to play flight sims or RTS games or good turn based strategy games or some RPGs or aim with a mouse and keyboard or play on servers with more than 32 people or be able to alt+tab back and forth with a strategy guide or a website or...
So basically shit casuals don't give a shit about.
Yes, because it has never been an option for them. Casuals never gave a shit about first person shooters until Goldeneye and more importantly Halo showed up. Casuals never gave a shit about RPGs until Mass Effect hopped onto the scene. Casuals never wanted to play indie games until they appeared on XBLA. Casuals didn't care about Internet multiplayer with people on their friends list until suddenly the consoles can do it and you log onto CoD one night and there are 15 frat boys talking into your ear. Casuals never gave a shit about voice chat or HD graphics or friends lists until they came to a platform they could use.
All I get when I read your post is that "people have shown no desire to do things they have never been able to do." I'm saying that now that these are a possibility maybe people will actually start caring.
It boggles my mind why they require a dual-core processor and a 1280x720 resolution for a flash stream.
Well, I don't know about your experience with Youtube, but 720p/1080p videos are choppy and slow on my single core P4. A netbook would be even worse than my computer at it
The latest version of flash supports GPUs, which allows for smooth playback of HD video with very little CPU usage.
Yea, I'm running that, it's not making that impressive of a difference
People seem to be missing something else about OnLive that's fascinating, to me at least.
Mac users are no longer left out in the dark with video games. Onlive allows a Mac user to play games that have never been ported to that OS, flawlessly.
People seem to be missing something else about OnLive that's fascinating, to me at least.
Mac users are no longer left out in the dark with video games. Onlive allows a Mac user to play games that have never been ported to that OS, flawlessly.
I think that could be a very good selling point.
This is actually a really good point that I hadn't thought of.
People seem to be missing something else about OnLive that's fascinating, to me at least.
Mac users are no longer left out in the dark with video games. Onlive allows a Mac user to play games that have never been ported to that OS, flawlessly.
People seem to be missing something else about OnLive that's fascinating, to me at least.
Mac users are no longer left out in the dark with video games. Onlive allows a Mac user to play games that have never been ported to that OS, flawlessly.
I think that could be a very good selling point.
Wasn't there some mention a little while ago from somebody at Valve that Apple, ATI, nvidia and Valve are getting together to improve things for mac gaming like ati and nvidia writing better more optimised drivers, Apple making better frameworks (akin to DirectX) for OSX etc?
If I remember they said the improvements wouldn't appear for a fair while though.
GrimReaper on
PSN | Steam
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
People seem to be missing something else about OnLive that's fascinating, to me at least.
Mac users are no longer left out in the dark with video games. Onlive allows a Mac user to play games that have never been ported to that OS, flawlessly.
People seem to be missing something else about OnLive that's fascinating, to me at least.
Mac users are no longer left out in the dark with video games. Onlive allows a Mac user to play games that have never been ported to that OS, flawlessly.
I think that could be a very good selling point.
I'll get all five mac users on the phone!
hey nice joke, person from 2003
They have like six percent of the market.
Is there any word on how much the microconsole will cost?
People seem to be missing something else about OnLive that's fascinating, to me at least.
Mac users are no longer left out in the dark with video games. Onlive allows a Mac user to play games that have never been ported to that OS, flawlessly.
I think that could be a very good selling point.
I'll get all five mac users on the phone!
hey nice joke, person from 2003
They have like six percent of the market.
Is there any word on how much the microconsole will cost?
If I remember correctly when they showed it off a while ago they said it was very simple hardware wise, so in theory it shouldn't cost that much. If it costs more than £100 I'd be surprised. I place my money on around £50.
GrimReaper on
PSN | Steam
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
It looks like you can but that there are licensing restrictions on some of them.
Unfortunately, because of licensing restrictions, we can only offer Mass Effect 2 for play under Windows. So, if you do not have access to a PC, your only option to play it on a Mac is under Windows using Boot Camp or a similar system. We apologize for the inconvenience. OnLive has no other games in the pipeline that are Windows-only, and we do not expect to have any others.
In other words, it depends on the publisher and developer so don't expect this shit to necessarily be rare.
What games available on there haven't been released on the Mac?
Well, i'm wrong again. I'm blown away that the service works.
Can anyone confirm that their web client works in Linux? If it does, and this comes up to Canada, I might sub to it just so I can ditch WinDOH!s forever.
I would have to consider my distance from one of their centers before i decided to give this a shot. Being in Montana usually means i'm going to get jack shit for connectivity.
People seem to be missing something else about OnLive that's fascinating, to me at least.
Mac users are no longer left out in the dark with video games. Onlive allows a Mac user to play games that have never been ported to that OS, flawlessly.
I think that could be a very good selling point.
Steam for Mac will do a lot more for Mac Gaming than onlive.
For one thing, Steam is a solid service with some years under its belt and many publishers and developers on board.
Also, steam's benefits wouldn't disappear even if Valve blew up and steam exploded. Onlive is one power switch away from vanishing forever at any given time. With Steam, I would be able to find workarounds to get my games working again if it vanished.
Oh, and the whole "you lose all your BOUGHT games after 12 months away" and "we can remove older games at any given time" clauses? Fuck that very hard. And fuck anyone who pays for that very hard too.
I listed them already, but like being able to play flight sims or RTS games or good turn based strategy games or some RPGs or aim with a mouse and keyboard or play on servers with more than 32 people or be able to alt+tab back and forth with a strategy guide or a website or...
So basically shit casuals don't give a shit about.
Yes, because it has never been an option for them. Casuals never gave a shit about first person shooters until Goldeneye and more importantly Halo showed up. Casuals never gave a shit about RPGs until Mass Effect hopped onto the scene. Casuals never wanted to play indie games until they appeared on XBLA. Casuals didn't care about Internet multiplayer with people on their friends list until suddenly the consoles can do it and you log onto CoD one night and there are 15 frat boys talking into your ear. Casuals never gave a shit about voice chat or HD graphics or friends lists until they came to a platform they could use.
All I get when I read your post is that "people have shown no desire to do things they have never been able to do." I'm saying that now that these are a possibility maybe people will actually start caring.
Yes, because it has never been an option for them.
If you ignore the console RTS games, sure. Since when the fuck where there no turn based games on consoles? There are. The flight sims? Those have always been niche. People don't want to play sims of shit they don't particularly care about. Car sims succeed on the consoles because they actually care about the subject matter.They just sell poorly compared to other games. You actually think they would prefer keyboard and mouse to the regular controller? News flash. Most of them prefer the controller to keyboard and mouse. MAG has how many people on at once? It hasn't exactly set the casuals on fire. Fuck, the vast majority of multiplayer games on the PC don't have more than 32 players. Even if it theoretically supports more than that, very few people actually play with more than that because it is usually a clusterfuck. As for going to a webpage, you can already do that with steam. Shift plus Tab. Your examples are shit that most PC gamers don't even give a fuck about.
PC gaming isn't some special snowflake. It is the same crap as consoles except more of a clusterfuck. Talking about keyboard and mouse as some kind of benefit that console gamers is utter bullshit. Even Onlive knows this. If you will notice, their stupid miniconsole or whatever comes with a controller, not a keyboard and mouse. The PS3 has long been capable of supporting the keyboard and mouse but developers aren't rushing to support it despite the obvious availability of keyboards and mice to the general consumer. UT3 suported the keyboard and mouse. Guess what? I can guarantee the vast majority didn't opt to use the usb keyboard and mouse they had with it.
Yes, because it has never been an option for them.
If you ignore the console RTS games, sure. Since when the fuck where there no turn based games on consoles? There are. The flight sims? Those have always been niche. People don't want to play sims of shit they don't particularly care about. Car sims succeed on the consoles because they actually care about the subject matter.They just sell poorly compared to other games. You actually think they would prefer keyboard and mouse to the regular controller? News flash. Most of them prefer the controller to keyboard and mouse. MAG has how many people on at once? It hasn't exactly set the casuals on fire. Fuck, the vast majority of multiplayer games on the PC don't have more than 32 players. Even if it theoretically supports more than that, very few people actually play with more than that because it is usually a clusterfuck. As for going to a webpage, you can already do that with steam. Shift plus Tab.
Yes, I'm ignoring all seven or so console RTS games, all of which have been varying shades of awful. Consoles have had very specific kinds of turn-based games but nothing like X-COM or Civilization 2 or the Total War series or pretty much anything other than Final Fantasy Tactics and its ilk until very recently with some XBLA indie games and even then there's nothing like King's Bounty or anything. Flight sims have always been niche and they've been even more niche because they've never really been on consoles in any force because you need more than the 4 buttons on a gamepad to fly a plane, whereas car sims, which can fit on a gamepad, have been more successful because people can play them without figuring out how to work a gaming PC, which is what OnLive can do for flight sims. People prefer the controller because that's what they've always played video games with because nobody except the relatively hardcore ever got into FPS games on a PC (because it was too complicated/nerdy. See what I'm saying?). MAG is literally the only console game I have ever heard of that has more than a tiny amount of players and I'm not saying it needs to cause a revolution. I'm just saying some people like a sense of scale and they've never had the option on consoles. And frankly large games aren't a clusterfuck on the PC which is kind of what we're talking about. And I'm glad that you've managed to figure out how to use Steam to simultaneously browse the web, but unfortunately that takes more technical knowledge than your average console gamer has, plus it takes a PC powerful enough to run the game in the first place (plus the overlay which performs pretty badly). OnLive, meanwhile, is as easy to switch to and away from as any other program, so the people who don't really know how a computer works (which comprise ALMOST THE ENTIRETY OF ONLIVE'S TARGET AUDIENCE) will be able to work it out.
Yes, because it has never been an option for them.
If you ignore the console RTS games, sure. Since when the fuck where there no turn based games on consoles? There are. The flight sims? Those have always been niche. People don't want to play sims of shit they don't particularly care about. Car sims succeed on the consoles because they actually care about the subject matter.They just sell poorly compared to other games. You actually think they would prefer keyboard and mouse to the regular controller? News flash. Most of them prefer the controller to keyboard and mouse. MAG has how many people on at once? It hasn't exactly set the casuals on fire. Fuck, the vast majority of multiplayer games on the PC don't have more than 32 players. Even if it theoretically supports more than that, very few people actually play with more than that because it is usually a clusterfuck. As for going to a webpage, you can already do that with steam. Shift plus Tab.
Yes, I'm ignoring all seven or so console RTS games
Well, the Genesis and PSX got really good ports of some of the best RTS games, in the form of Dune 2, Command and Conquer, and Red Alert. The Genesis and PSX also had a few good original ones, like Herzog Zwei.
Consoles have had very specific kinds of turn-based games but nothing like X-COM or Civilization 2 or the Total War series or pretty much anything other than Final Fantasy Tactics and its ilk until very recently with some XBLA indie games and even then there's nothing like King's Bounty or anything.
Flight sims have always been niche and they've been even more niche because they've never really been on consoles in any force because you need more than the 4 buttons on a gamepad to fly a plane
You actually think that is why they are niche? I can come up with a 1000 reasons they are niche other than that. They are convoluted games that not even most PC gamers want to play.
People prefer the controller because that's what they've always played video games with because nobody except the relatively hardcore ever got into FPS games on a PC (because it was too complicated/nerdy. See what I'm saying?).
Doom-5 million
Counter-Strike-4.2 million
Half-Life-9.3 million (if that is relatively hardcore, the phrase hardcore is even more meaningless shit)
Battlefield 1942 (4.39 million BF1942 2.47 million, BF1942:RTR 0.64 million, BF1942:SW 0.49 million, BF Deluxe 0.37 million, BF Anthology 0.42 million)
Battlefield 2 (3.57 million BF2 2.25 million,BF2:SF 0.8 million,BF2:EF 0.2 million,BF2:AF 0.13 million,BF2 Deluxe 0.1 million,BF2 Complete Collection 0.09 million)
Calling PC FPS games relatively hardcore makes no sense. You might as well call Halo relatively hardcore.
I'm just saying some people like a sense of scale and they've never had the option on consoles.
Some people are not many people.
that takes more technical knowledge than your average console gamer has
plus it takes a PC powerful enough to run the game in the first place
So you are saying that the average console gamer is so fucking retarded that he is incapable of using steam, which is now extremely userfriendly, and pressing Shift+Tab or even realizing it exists? Onlive takes a computer with an internet connection capable of running Onlive. I'm not seeing the difference.
OnLive, meanwhile, is as easy to switch to and away from as any other program, so the people who don't really know how a computer works (which comprise ALMOST THE ENTIRETY OF ONLIVE'S TARGET AUDIENCE) will be able to work it out.
Or they can just get a console and do the same shit except for a few random crap you listed that they will rarely use.
Consoles have had very specific kinds of turn-based games but nothing like X-COM or Civilization 2 or the Total War series or pretty much anything other than Final Fantasy Tactics and its ilk until very recently with some XBLA indie games and even then there's nothing like King's Bounty or anything.
Well, the Genesis and PSX got really good ports of some of the best RTS games, in the form of Dune 2, Command and Conquer, and Red Alert. The Genesis and PSX also had a few good original ones, like Herzog Zwei.
Warcraft and Syndicate Wars were on the PS1. Starcraft was on the N64.
Command and Conquer for the 360. Halo Wars. Supreme Commander. Brutal Legend. Darwinia. Battlestations: Midway. Endwar. World in Conflict.
Well, the Genesis and PSX got really good ports of some of the best RTS games, in the form of Dune 2, Command and Conquer, and Red Alert. The Genesis and PSX also had a few good original ones, like Herzog Zwei.
Warcraft and Syndicate Wars were on the PS1. Starcraft was on the N64.
Command and Conquer for the 360. Halo Wars. Supreme Commander. Brutal Legend. Darwinia. Battlestations: Midway. Endwar.
Well, the Genesis and PSX got really good ports of some of the best RTS games, in the form of Dune 2, Command and Conquer, and Red Alert. The Genesis and PSX also had a few good original ones, like Herzog Zwei.
Warcraft and Syndicate Wars were on the PS1. Starcraft was on the N64.
Command and Conquer for the 360. Halo Wars. Supreme Commander. Brutal Legend. Darwinia. Battlestations: Midway. Endwar. World in Conflict.
With the exception of Brutal Legend, those all sucked on consoles.
Well, the Genesis and PSX got really good ports of some of the best RTS games, in the form of Dune 2, Command and Conquer, and Red Alert. The Genesis and PSX also had a few good original ones, like Herzog Zwei.
Warcraft and Syndicate Wars were on the PS1. Starcraft was on the N64.
Command and Conquer for the 360. Halo Wars. Supreme Commander. Brutal Legend. Darwinia. Battlestations: Midway. Endwar. World in Conflict.
With the exception of Brutal Legend, those all sucked on consoles.
Metacritic:
Halo Wars-82
Command and Conquer-75
Supreme Command 2-75
Battlestations: Pacific-76
Endwar-77
Or are we going to start defining "suck" as "not as good as I want it to be?"
Fine, there are 6 good RTS games on consoles, and you'd have to be a moron to even want to play something deeper than Halo "Select All and Atack" Wars and the only people who play Total War games or Company of Heroes or Warcraft III or Homeworld or Starcraft II are weirdos.
TychoCelchuuu on
0
Options
MaratastikJust call me Mara, please!Registered Userregular
edited June 2010
Chalk me up as a weirdo then...
Maratastik on
0
Options
Liquid GhostDO YOU HEAR THE VOICES, TOO?!Registered Userregular
Posts
Well, I don't know about your experience with Youtube, but 720p/1080p videos are choppy and slow on my single core P4. A netbook would be even worse than my computer at it
Maybe I'm being a curmudgeon, but I'd assume that input lag with a keyboard/mouse setup would be much more notable than with a gamepad.
Pretty much. On my netbook (N280 1.6GHz Atom with 2GB of RAM) anything larger than the standard youtube video window and 360 resolution runs pretty choppy. Then again, since this is all being compressed and streamed to me, you would think they would detect what your computer should be capable of and scale it down appropriately. Obviously if I'm running on a netbook I wouldn't expect 720p HD graphics. The resolution of the 10" screen only goes up to 1024x600 as it is.
Either way, in regards to the wifi and cable restrictions, something would be better than the nothing I'm getting right now. I can understand that they are trying to make sure the experience is a positive one, but with all the restrictions they are placing on the service, they are imo creating a worse image of the service than just letting us try to use it on wifi and single-core computers.
I listed them already, but like being able to play flight sims or RTS games or good turn based strategy games or some RPGs or aim with a mouse and keyboard or play on servers with more than 32 people or be able to alt+tab back and forth with a strategy guide or a website or...
etc. All of the people posting in the threads for PC only games aren't just hanging out there because they want a resolution higher than 720p, man.
Netbooks are computers with a screen size under 13 inches, as far as I know. Lots of netbooks that fit the bill can play 720p Youtube videos.
Something's wrong with your computer then. My netbook is an 8.9" with an N270 and I can watch widescreen 480p videos on Youtube with no slowdowns at all.
Their tech must not be total bullshit, as so many in this thread have proclaimed
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
Yes, because it has never been an option for them. Casuals never gave a shit about first person shooters until Goldeneye and more importantly Halo showed up. Casuals never gave a shit about RPGs until Mass Effect hopped onto the scene. Casuals never wanted to play indie games until they appeared on XBLA. Casuals didn't care about Internet multiplayer with people on their friends list until suddenly the consoles can do it and you log onto CoD one night and there are 15 frat boys talking into your ear. Casuals never gave a shit about voice chat or HD graphics or friends lists until they came to a platform they could use.
All I get when I read your post is that "people have shown no desire to do things they have never been able to do." I'm saying that now that these are a possibility maybe people will actually start caring.
Yea, I'm running that, it's not making that impressive of a difference
Mac users are no longer left out in the dark with video games. Onlive allows a Mac user to play games that have never been ported to that OS, flawlessly.
I think that could be a very good selling point.
This is actually a really good point that I hadn't thought of.
I'll get all five mac users on the phone!
Wasn't there some mention a little while ago from somebody at Valve that Apple, ATI, nvidia and Valve are getting together to improve things for mac gaming like ati and nvidia writing better more optimised drivers, Apple making better frameworks (akin to DirectX) for OSX etc?
If I remember they said the improvements wouldn't appear for a fair while though.
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
hey nice joke, person from 2003
They have like six percent of the market.
Is there any word on how much the microconsole will cost?
If I remember correctly when they showed it off a while ago they said it was very simple hardware wise, so in theory it shouldn't cost that much. If it costs more than £100 I'd be surprised. I place my money on around £50.
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
It looks like you can but that there are licensing restrictions on some of them. In other words, it depends on the publisher and developer so don't expect this shit to necessarily be rare.
What games available on there haven't been released on the Mac?
Can anyone confirm that their web client works in Linux? If it does, and this comes up to Canada, I might sub to it just so I can ditch WinDOH!s forever.
XBLGT:Banzeye SC2: Apollo.394
Nevermind that it will only be available to a small fraction of the United States. And probably will remain inside the US of A for a long while.
Nevermind that there are millions of PC gamers outside the US of A.
Nevermind that many of the best PC game Developers are NOT in the US of A.
Steam for Mac will do a lot more for Mac Gaming than onlive.
For one thing, Steam is a solid service with some years under its belt and many publishers and developers on board.
Also, steam's benefits wouldn't disappear even if Valve blew up and steam exploded. Onlive is one power switch away from vanishing forever at any given time. With Steam, I would be able to find workarounds to get my games working again if it vanished.
Oh, and the whole "you lose all your BOUGHT games after 12 months away" and "we can remove older games at any given time" clauses? Fuck that very hard. And fuck anyone who pays for that very hard too.
This is just the most awesome post ever, really.
PC gaming isn't some special snowflake. It is the same crap as consoles except more of a clusterfuck. Talking about keyboard and mouse as some kind of benefit that console gamers is utter bullshit. Even Onlive knows this. If you will notice, their stupid miniconsole or whatever comes with a controller, not a keyboard and mouse. The PS3 has long been capable of supporting the keyboard and mouse but developers aren't rushing to support it despite the obvious availability of keyboards and mice to the general consumer. UT3 suported the keyboard and mouse. Guess what? I can guarantee the vast majority didn't opt to use the usb keyboard and mouse they had with it.
Yes, I'm ignoring all seven or so console RTS games, all of which have been varying shades of awful. Consoles have had very specific kinds of turn-based games but nothing like X-COM or Civilization 2 or the Total War series or pretty much anything other than Final Fantasy Tactics and its ilk until very recently with some XBLA indie games and even then there's nothing like King's Bounty or anything. Flight sims have always been niche and they've been even more niche because they've never really been on consoles in any force because you need more than the 4 buttons on a gamepad to fly a plane, whereas car sims, which can fit on a gamepad, have been more successful because people can play them without figuring out how to work a gaming PC, which is what OnLive can do for flight sims. People prefer the controller because that's what they've always played video games with because nobody except the relatively hardcore ever got into FPS games on a PC (because it was too complicated/nerdy. See what I'm saying?). MAG is literally the only console game I have ever heard of that has more than a tiny amount of players and I'm not saying it needs to cause a revolution. I'm just saying some people like a sense of scale and they've never had the option on consoles. And frankly large games aren't a clusterfuck on the PC which is kind of what we're talking about. And I'm glad that you've managed to figure out how to use Steam to simultaneously browse the web, but unfortunately that takes more technical knowledge than your average console gamer has, plus it takes a PC powerful enough to run the game in the first place (plus the overlay which performs pretty badly). OnLive, meanwhile, is as easy to switch to and away from as any other program, so the people who don't really know how a computer works (which comprise ALMOST THE ENTIRETY OF ONLIVE'S TARGET AUDIENCE) will be able to work it out.
Well, the Genesis and PSX got really good ports of some of the best RTS games, in the form of Dune 2, Command and Conquer, and Red Alert. The Genesis and PSX also had a few good original ones, like Herzog Zwei.
http://s.uvlist.net/l/y2007/10/42721.jpg
You actually think that is why they are niche? I can come up with a 1000 reasons they are niche other than that. They are convoluted games that not even most PC gamers want to play.
Doom-5 million
Counter-Strike-4.2 million
Half-Life-9.3 million (if that is relatively hardcore, the phrase hardcore is even more meaningless shit)
Battlefield 1942 (4.39 million BF1942 2.47 million, BF1942:RTR 0.64 million, BF1942:SW 0.49 million, BF Deluxe 0.37 million, BF Anthology 0.42 million)
Battlefield 2 (3.57 million BF2 2.25 million,BF2:SF 0.8 million,BF2:EF 0.2 million,BF2:AF 0.13 million,BF2 Deluxe 0.1 million,BF2 Complete Collection 0.09 million)
Calling PC FPS games relatively hardcore makes no sense. You might as well call Halo relatively hardcore.
Some people are not many people.
So you are saying that the average console gamer is so fucking retarded that he is incapable of using steam, which is now extremely userfriendly, and pressing Shift+Tab or even realizing it exists? Onlive takes a computer with an internet connection capable of running Onlive. I'm not seeing the difference.
Or they can just get a console and do the same shit except for a few random crap you listed that they will rarely use.
Also,
PSX mouse compatible too!
Command and Conquer for the 360. Halo Wars. Supreme Commander. Brutal Legend. Darwinia. Battlestations: Midway. Endwar. World in Conflict.
Warcraft 2 was on the Saturn too
With the exception of Brutal Legend, those all sucked on consoles.
Metacritic:
Halo Wars-82
Command and Conquer-75
Supreme Command 2-75
Battlestations: Pacific-76
Endwar-77
Or are we going to start defining "suck" as "not as good as I want it to be?"