OnLive. This could very well change what we need to play games

Looks promising... I can't wait to see what it has in store for us.
 
Haggus McGee said:
Offline capabilities?
Click to expand...

That's one of my big problems, there are NO offline capabilities. Everything is stored remotely, so if your tubes go down you have lost all your games until it comes back. Most of my other problems have been stated, like lag.

I am also worried if it caught on that the PC hardware market would stagnate.

Plus, how do they expect to be able to afford the server space required to make this mainstream? The amount of bandwidth and straight hardware needed is insane.
 
I'm very, very skeptical. Please consider what Gamefly was supposed to be when it came out. Server-side running of games just doesnt seem like a great idea. Take a look at when you play any of the eGO supported games. Do you lag sometimes? All the time? It's gonna be the same thing cause everything is on THEIR side with the user basically streaming.
 
My dad sent me a link for the external Beta. If I get it I'll let you know.
 
If you don't have broadband internet, don't bother.
 
Copy and pasted directly from CAD-comic.com

When it was first announced, my initial reaction was "Wow, that's amazing" followed immediately by "But I don't want to give up that much control over my games.". And I don't. I don't want to rely on so many X factors to access and enjoy my games. I don't want to rely on the OnLive service functioning, as well as the internet service to deliver it. What if I wanted to travel somewhere that doesn't have internet? I could take my console. With OnLive I'd be completely cut off.

I don't want to not "own" the game I'm paying for. I know more and more things are going digital these days, but there's still a lot of comfort in owning a physical copy of something you paid for. You know it's there when you need it. I imagine it's the same reason people purchase the Ctrl+Alt+Del collection books even though all of the comics are available for free online. Sometimes you want tangible stuff that you know can't disappear with an internet outage or a corrupt hard drive.

I also don't like the idea of losing control over a game that I've bought. While I cannot honestly think of a time in recent memory where I chose not to patch a game because I didn't agree with the patch changes, I'm not sure I want to relinquish that option. I'm not sure I want to start playing a game, and then have it disappear because the developer decided it wasn't selling well enough.

So those are some of the things, right off the bat, that turn me off about the idea. They mirror some of the general concerns I've heard murmered about the concept.

"What about lag and internet/service outages?" Exactly. OnLive says they've developed new tech that all but obliterates latency but... honestly, haven't we all heard that before? The bottom line is, the service will be prone to hiccups and lag. Now most of us have come to accept this as a fact of life when we play multiplayer games online. But do we really want to introduce this variable into our single player experiences as well?

Additionally, not everyone has great internet speeds, and not everyone has uncapped bandwidth. These are additional speedbumps the service has to deal with.

But who says there's only one service? Yes, OnLive is the first, but does anybody honestly think that, if this actually works, that other companies aren't going to launch their own versions of the service? Of course they are. And then this idea of a utopian, console-free, one-stop video-gamescape goes right out the window, because we're back to different services competing for subscribers, and competing for exclusive rights to various games. Want to play the new Call of Duty? Sure thing, it's on this network. Oh, but you want to play the new Starcraft? Sorry, it's exclusive to this other service.

And that's not even mentioning all of the companies who have built their business around asking us to purchase new hardware every few years. I cannot see nVidia or ATI lying down while a service says "Hey everyone, you don't have to buy a new graphics card, we'll run the game for you!". I can't see Microsoft saying "Sure, don't buy our console, we don't want the revenue from XBL, etc anyway."

I won't pretend to know the architecture of the intricate web of licensing and exclusivity deals that ensares the entire games industry, but I do suspect that some pretty strict arrangements would start popping up between developers and the console manufacturers. And I also know that a lot of development studios are owned by console manufacturers, or other publishers. I doubt Microsoft spent so much time and money acquiring a lion's share of the industry to turn around and let Bungie's new Halo game show up on a service that costs them console sales.

And Nintendo... Nintendo shits money and they've had an incredible case of explosive diarrhea for the last few years. What incentive do they have to license their titles to a start-up service that, once again, doesn't sell their hardware?
Click to expand...
 
This is either going to be incredibly epic, or it will be a huge bust.

I'm going towards the huge bust, but would honestly like to see it do good.

You'd need an extremely powerful connection, and streaming HD video will have its share of latency issues, even after compression.
 
I see a few disadvantages of this guy.

1) You need a fast DSL/Cable Connection.

At the bare minimum, you must have a 1.5Mbit/sec internet connection to play OnLive games at SDTV resolution (720x480 widescreen) and at least 5Mbit/sec of bandwidth for HDTV gaming at 720p (1280x720).

2) You will have to test your latency between you and the Data Centers to see if you qualify to even play one. (this goes back to the fast dsl/cable connection)

3) This could lead to ISP's limiting monthly bandwidth or you using your monthly bandwidth early.

Here are a few articles on OnLive

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/03/25/gdc-09-onlive-bosses-talk-bandwidth-caps/

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/everything_you_need_know_about_onlive_is_your_next_gaming_console
 
ya honestly it seems great in theory, but theres no way everybody is gonna lay down and let onlive take over everything. theres just no way
 
It's actually kind of scary. Here's why...
-The fact that there will be one company controlling your gaming needs. If it catches on, you will be seeing "Sorry, this title is not available due to the high demand, check back in to see if it's available in your next life.".
-What about all those ISPs that have a bandwidth cap, you'll eat that up in the first week.
-What happens if you internet is down? What are you going to do then? Spend time with the family? Pfft.
-You buying the game helps companies make future games and better quality games. Since you won't actually be buying the game, it will be harder for these companies to make the best game that they can make.
-OnLive, if it become popular enough, could actually then control the market of games. Say this developer wants to make this excellent game but OnLive doesn't want to upgrade their servers to host this new game. Do you think you will ever see this game?
-OnLive has a bad month, their profits drop and they need to make it up some how. They start adding advertisements for Burger King and Virgin Mobile on your gaming screen. Nothing like playing your favorite game and having to shoot that guy behind the Toyota advertisement while your team mate is stuck on that pop-up for that new Britney Spears fragrance.

Bah, I'll stick the good ol fashion "New game comes out? Upgrade the PC" life. That's my two-cents.
 
I sense OnLive failing.

Just think about all the bandwidth you will need just to play on Standard, not to mention HD.
 
Do you ABSOLUTELY need to use the OnLive game controller to play on OnLive?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top