OnLive: May change the way you play PC Games?

Whaat?

OnLive is a video games on demand service that may change the way you play PC games and the only hardware you need costs less than a Wii. All you need is a low end PC (at the very least) and a good internet connection. You can even play it on a laptop or macbook...hell, you don't even need a GPU. What? Then how does it work? The concept is quite simple. The input from your controller isn't being transferred to the machine in front of you, but going through the internet to Onlive's machines and then back again as streamed video. Sounds clever, eh? OnLive claims their blazing fast video feeds (a ping less than one millisecond) will ensure that there will be no lag.

Also, their way of of delivering video game contents means no install times, cross platform compatibility, try demos instantly, and an opportunity to rent games instantly. It's appeal is so big, that it already has buy-ins from major publishers like EA, Take-Two, and Ubisoft.

Sounds big! One thing that should be noted is that this is NOT DIGITAL DISTRIBITION. You're playing on their machines through on demand/supscription (think of it like Gametap) also meaning you DON'T OWN any of the games. Other than that, this could change the way you play games! Consider it as another option.

Here is the full info from Kotaku

OnLive on GT

OnLive on GT pt2

EDIT: There seems to be very mixed reactions about this. I've changed the title to straighten things out and keep it real. I will say that it's not going to take over PC gaming, but it will probably draw in new crowds if things go well for the service. As I said, this is more of another option to play PC games if anything.

Only big problem is that you'll need a very fast internet connection, especially online multi-player.

The menu system looks like a mix of Wii channels and NXE.

Arrr... im a tad to late, i just made a topic of this lol.

*copied and pasted from other thread(s) to keep discussion going*

agree. Plus, I don't think current video compression capabilites and lack of stable broadband penetration will allow this to proliferate... yet.

Arrr... im a tad to late, i just made a topic of this lol.

nitsud_19

Sounds realy good. Think this concept can get massive in the future when blazing fast internet becomes more comon and cheaper. Here in Amsterdam we have a 120 MB internet option at fastest for 80 Euro's each month. If it's gets cheaper the OnLive would be a fantastic option. Especialy when you can play on TV and such.

My thoughts:

Total vaporware. In fact it sounds an awful lot like the Phantom, and we all know how that one turned out.

A consistent and responsive player experience is just not at all realistic when you're relying on a consumer Internet connection. Remeber it's not just the bandwidth, it's latency. High bandwidth is easy, low latency is very hard. Many high-bandwidth connections still have latency in the 50-100ms range, which will quickly deteriorate the playing experience. For years online mulitplayer games have used client-side prediction to "fill in the gaps", but you can't fill in the gaps for player input or for a video signal.

My thoughts:

Total vaporware. In fact it sounds an awful lot like the Phantom, and we all know how that one turned out.

A consistent and responsive player experience is just not at all realistic when you're relying on a consumer Internet connection. Remeber it's not just the bandwidth, it's latency. High bandwidth is easy, low latency is very hard. Many high-bandwidth connections still have latency in the 50-100ms range, which will quickly deteriorate the playing experience. For years online mulitplayer games have used client-side prediction to "fill in the gaps", but you can't fill in the gaps for player input or for a video signal.

Teufelhuhn

I'm staying cyinical as i don't think it will catch on well not in my house as the interent goes off every so often unless they have something to combat that i'm out.

I don't like it. I much prefer to own my own games plus having to rely on always having your internet connection up and running is very problematic. If my connection ever went down or even if I were to cancel it then I would completely lose access to my games which is a bogus notion. Plus there is the whole internet quality thing which kind of throws another wrench into it. Experiencing lag in playing particular games in online mode is one thing but to have it affect any game I were to own for this thing in any mode would be terrible. Also for some reason hearing that I get video playback from what I'm playing on some other machine somewhere else doesn't sit well with me. I feel like I lose a sense of direct contact and feedback. No sir I don't like it at all and I really hope it fails, hard.

I don't think it qualifies as vaporware since people have actually gone hands on with the device. It might not work as well as it has been shown, but I don't think you'd see so much publisher support for it if it wasn't legit. OnLive has to be a publisher's dream come true since it would eliminate piracy and used game sales.

You're going to be really bummed out when this (predictably) fails. People want at least some form of ownership. Having your ability to play games tied directly into the quality and stability of your internet connection at all times is stupid. Enough with the hyperbole, and the mandatory "well lets wait and see" optimism, this idea sucks, and it won't work. The crowd it appeals to and can be fully utilized by is just too damn narrow.CronoSquall

I would say that the only thing that is narrow is your viewpoint, but you're not alone. I doubt many people in 2003 expected Steam to grow into a distributing powerhouse it is today. The game industry system as it is now is destined to fail sooner or later, it's only a matter of time and this is just a warning sign that change is coming. Whether OnLive itself succeeds or not is not that important.

[QUOTE="CronoSquall"]You're going to be really bummed out when this (predictably) fails. People want at least some form of ownership. Having your ability to play games tied directly into the quality and stability of your internet connection at all times is stupid. Enough with the hyperbole, and the mandatory "well lets wait and see" optimism, this idea sucks, and it won't work. The crowd it appeals to and can be fully utilized by is just too damn narrow.UpInFlames

I would say that the only thing that is narrow is your viewpoint, but you're not alone. I doubt many people in 2003 expected Steam to grow into a distributing powerhouse it is today. The game industry system as it is now is destined to fail sooner or later, it's only a matter of time and this is just a warning sign that change is coming. Whether OnLive itself succeeds or not is not that important.

Yup. I'm sure Nintendo, Playstation and Xbox will still have a part to play in what is coming, but I don't see traditional consoles continuing for much longer than another generation. I look forward to it. As much as I am a Playstation fanboy, and I am, I want to see these platforms go away. No one is fiercely loyal to their DVD player manufacturer, they are just happy to have a machine that plays movies. In a full on cloud computing, digital distribution environment, people would stop being fiercely loyal to a piece of plastic, and would start focusing on games.

Well for me it's not that I care so much about seperate platforms it's more the idea of having my gaming totally reliant on the state of my Internet connection. I would much rather have a standardised platform where I have more control of my gaming experience. I still prefer having the physical copies of my games but even digital distribution allows for offline play. I don't care at all for the idea of my game collection floating around in cyber-space and to play them I must be connected to the net. Also for some reason hearing the idea that I get video playback of some other machine out there sounds weird to me. I mean what's the quality of this video playback? I don't know I just prefer having the direct contact and feedback from having my own system play and run my own games whether they be physical copies or downloaded games.

I think of this as the transitional phase of video games in general. What Onlive is doing is pushing it along. Do I believe it will succeed? Probably not right now. Give it a few more years, refine the servers so they are based on both consumers AND the company, and add more top-tier publishers and you're looking at a very compelling system.

Even if this ends in utter failure, people will remember this company doing this kind of thing first. Other game console companies and publishers will take notice, and improve on the model.

The problem is the direct and very real competition from the top 3 right now. But this is not the time for them to jump in. In the next generation of consoles, I am going to make a prediction that many if not all of the home console systems will do something very similar to this, while still supporting their first party software through both direct download and through brick-and-mortar stores.

Direct downloads ARE the future. It's fruitless to argue against that. From a profit standpoint, a competition standpoint, and a consumer standpoint, what makes the most sense? If you had the ability to press a button and be able to play Street Fighter 4 on a console in 5 seconds with full online support, would you do it? Without spending $300+?

As much as I am attached to my consoles, I applaud Onlive for going ahead with this. If they succeed, I may have to get one of these myself. But it better have Zelda...

Well for me it's not that I care so much about seperate platforms it's more the idea of having my gaming totally reliant on the state of my Internet connection. I would much rather have a standardised platform where I have more control of my gaming experience. I still prefer having the physical copies of my games but even digital distribution allows for offline play. I don't care at all for the idea of my game collection floating around in cyber-space and to play them I must be connected to the net. Also for some reason hearing the idea that I get video playback of some other machine out there sounds weird to me. I mean what's the quality of this video playback? I don't know I just prefer having the direct contact and feedback from having my own system play and run my own games whether they be physical copies or downloaded games.Archangel3371

As we go forward, we will connect more and more stuff to the Internet and it's only natural that digital entertainment (especially games) is at the forefront. I don't really understand this reprehension. What if your Internet connection breaks down? Well, what if your expensive console breaks down? Oh wait, it already has. What if your game disc gets scratched? Lost? What if you sell it and then regret it? What if Earth gets hit by an asteroid next year? We could go on like this, but what's the point? There are risks involved in both models, but it seems to me those risks are overwhelmingly higher in the current physical model. Let's not even talk about the costs.

Besides, if your connection happens to break down or something, you'll be inconvenienced for--what?--a few hours? Days? If your console breaks down, you're screwed.

As for your video quality question, I believe they said you'd need a 1mbit connection for SD and 5mbit for HD. The only thing that will change based on your connection speed in the resolution.

ok hold on a second.

what tangible game "progress" are we really talking about here?

Lets see the list

•1. play high end games without buying a video card.

•2. not have games in your bookshelves.

Ok not something trivial but we are not exactly talking about bringing in Microsoft Surfaces to the home for game play or anything now are we?

How does actual game play become better? More accessible yes, better no.SEANMCAD

Again, very short-sighted. Developers would be freed from any hardware/manufacturer shackles. The only thing they would be bound is their creativity and budget. They'd be freed from pointless exclusivity trading and buying. Knowing that their game is available to hundreds of millions of people with an Internet connection with a click of a mouse would encourage innovation, risk-taking and fierce competition on a creative level as opposed to today's model of buying your way out. This is just a few obvious examples off the top of my head.

In my opinion, this is bad.

1. If at any time your, or thier, connection/servers go down, YOU CAN'T PLAY ANY GAMES. FULL STOP.
2. It would wipe out video games stores worldwide.
3. It will no doubt be an expensive subscription. I don't want to have to pay monthly to play MY games, especially singleplayer.

OnLive? No thanks.

hmmm...in canada the internet providers throttle the speed down during the day, due to the system being overloaded. Instead of fixing the issue, they just throttle everyone. Might be an issue here.xfcanadian

The Internet infrastructure today is not in a good state, this is no doubt the biggest hurdle. However, if I'm not mistaken, there are repairs underway and even plans to rebuild the whole thing. Not an easy task, but I think that just like with the apocalyptic Y2K bug, humanity will manage...somehow. :wink:

I am interested in this Onlive thing. I am interested to see what the final product will be like. I definetely approve of the idea behind it, though only time will tell how the execution will make this thing succeed or flop.

I'm not completely for it yet, but it has my attention.

I dunno seems like to much of a luxury item. The actual hardware might be cheap but then theres a subsciption fee then you have to buy the games(which is only the price of xbox live) but then you have to pay for high speed internet. I do believe this is the future of gaming but i dont think this is the one thats gunna switch us over.Im skeptical about it. It seems like its gunna be like what dreamcast was for online consoles

[QUOTE="Archangel3371"]Well for me it's not that I care so much about seperate platforms it's more the idea of having my gaming totally reliant on the state of my Internet connection. I would much rather have a standardised platform where I have more control of my gaming experience. I still prefer having the physical copies of my games but even digital distribution allows for offline play. I don't care at all for the idea of my game collection floating around in cyber-space and to play them I must be connected to the net. Also for some reason hearing the idea that I get video playback of some other machine out there sounds weird to me. I mean what's the quality of this video playback? I don't know I just prefer having the direct contact and feedback from having my own system play and run my own games whether they be physical copies or downloaded games.UpInFlames

As we go forward, we will connect more and more stuff to the Internet and it's only natural that digital entertainment (especially games) is at the forefront. I don't really understand this reprehension. What if your Internet connection breaks down? Well, what if your expensive console breaks down? Oh wait, it already has. What if your game disc gets scratched? Lost? What if you sell it and then regret it? What if Earth gets hit by an asteroid next year? We could go on like this, but what's the point? There are risks involved in both models, but it seems to me those risks are overwhelmingly higher in the current physical model. Let's not even talk about the costs.

Besides, if your connection happens to break down or something, you'll be inconvenienced for--what?--a few hours? Days? If your console breaks down, you're screwed.

As for your video quality question, I believe they said you'd need a 1mbit connection for SD and 5mbit for HD. The only thing that will change based on your connection speed in the resolution.

What if Earth gets hit by an asteroid? :lol: Oh come on man. Going a little bit overboard are we. Yeah systems can break down and disks can get scratched but I'd still prefer those potential problems over having to totally rely on on Internet connection to play games. Having the luxury to play them anytime or anywhere at my leisure is much more preferrable to me. I don't like how this system sounds at all. If I sell a game and regret it big deal. That happens sometimes but I buy the game cheaper. I love having the ability to buy and sell my games and the selling and trading aspect will be totally gone. No I really don't like this approach at all and I seriously hope it is a massive failure.

I like the concept a lot. My main concerns are bandwidth usage and pricing. I'll be keeping an eye on the news and reviews for this service.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="Archangel3371"]Well for me it's not that I care so much about seperate platforms it's more the idea of having my gaming totally reliant on the state of my Internet connection. I would much rather have a standardised platform where I have more control of my gaming experience. I still prefer having the physical copies of my games but even digital distribution allows for offline play. I don't care at all for the idea of my game collection floating around in cyber-space and to play them I must be connected to the net. Also for some reason hearing the idea that I get video playback of some other machine out there sounds weird to me. I mean what's the quality of this video playback? I don't know I just prefer having the direct contact and feedback from having my own system play and run my own games whether they be physical copies or downloaded games.Archangel3371

As we go forward, we will connect more and more stuff to the Internet and it's only natural that digital entertainment (especially games) is at the forefront. I don't really understand this reprehension. What if your Internet connection breaks down? Well, what if your expensive console breaks down? Oh wait, it already has. What if your game disc gets scratched? Lost? What if you sell it and then regret it? What if Earth gets hit by an asteroid next year? We could go on like this, but what's the point? There are risks involved in both models, but it seems to me those risks are overwhelmingly higher in the current physical model. Let's not even talk about the costs.

Besides, if your connection happens to break down or something, you'll be inconvenienced for--what?--a few hours? Days? If your console breaks down, you're screwed.

As for your video quality question, I believe they said you'd need a 1mbit connection for SD and 5mbit for HD. The only thing that will change based on your connection speed in the resolution.

What if Earth gets hit by an asteroid? :lol: Oh come on man. Going a little bit overboard are we. Yeah systems can break down and disks can get scratched but I'd still prefer those potential problems over having to totally rely on on Internet connection to play games. Having the luxury to play them anytime or anywhere at my leisure is much more preferrable to me. I don't like how this system sounds at all. If I sell a game and regret it big deal. That happens sometimes but I buy the game cheaper. I love having the ability to buy and sell my games and the selling and trading aspect will be totally gone. No I really don't like this approach at all and I seriously hope it is a massive failure.

Can't wait for the show

[QUOTE="Archangel3371"]

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

As we go forward, we will connect more and more stuff to the Internet and it's only natural that digital entertainment (especially games) is at the forefront. I don't really understand this reprehension. What if your Internet connection breaks down? Well, what if your expensive console breaks down? Oh wait, it already has. What if your game disc gets scratched? Lost? What if you sell it and then regret it? What if Earth gets hit by an asteroid next year? We could go on like this, but what's the point? There are risks involved in both models, but it seems to me those risks are overwhelmingly higher in the current physical model. Let's not even talk about the costs.

Besides, if your connection happens to break down or something, you'll be inconvenienced for--what?--a few hours? Days? If your console breaks down, you're screwed.

As for your video quality question, I believe they said you'd need a 1mbit connection for SD and 5mbit for HD. The only thing that will change based on your connection speed in the resolution.

Oilers99

What if Earth gets hit by an asteroid? :lol: Oh come on man. Going a little bit overboard are we. Yeah systems can break down and disks can get scratched but I'd still prefer those potential problems over having to totally rely on on Internet connection to play games. Having the luxury to play them anytime or anywhere at my leisure is much more preferrable to me. I don't like how this system sounds at all. If I sell a game and regret it big deal. That happens sometimes but I buy the game cheaper. I love having the ability to buy and sell my games and the selling and trading aspect will be totally gone. No I really don't like this approach at all and I seriously hope it is a massive failure.

Well being able to sell and trade would definately be nice if they were to allow this somehow but I'm really doubting that this will be anything that they'll really want to do if there's any chance they can manage without. While I do prefer physical copies I'm not opposed to digital distribution as long as I can download it and play at my choosing without having to rely on an Internet connection or the state of that connection. That's the main thing that rubs me the wrong way about this Onlive thing.

I wonder if the ability to sell games, digital games, will be something that will show up in court at some point; if I "own" the right to play a game, I should be able to sell that right too, shouldn't I?Oilers99

Not really. All you get is a license, you don't actually own anything. PC games have already been that way for a long time now, even retail games, all I own is the box and disc, but not the game itself. Will some kind of trading and/or selling digital games be possible? It's hard to predict, but you can bet that all publishers will try their best to stop it. I think that only selling entire accounts will be possible and not many people are going to do that.

[QUOTE="starfox15"]

I think of this as the transitional phase of video games in general. What Onlive is doing is pushing it along. Do I believe it will succeed? Probably not right now. Give it a few more years, refine the servers so they are based on both consumers AND the company, and add more top-tier publishers and you're looking at a very compelling system.

Even if this ends in utter failure, people will remember this company doing this kind of thing first. Other game console companies and publishers will take notice, and improve on the model.

The problem is the direct and very real competition from the top 3 right now. But this is not the time for them to jump in. In the next generation of consoles, I am going to make a prediction that many if not all of the home console systems will do something very similar to this, while still supporting their first party software through both direct download and through brick-and-mortar stores.

Direct downloads ARE the future. It's fruitless to argue against that. From a profit standpoint, a competition standpoint, and a consumer standpoint, what makes the most sense? If you had the ability to press a button and be able to play Street Fighter 4 on a console in 5 seconds with full online support, would you do it? Without spending $300+?

As much as I am attached to my consoles, I applaud Onlive for going ahead with this. If they succeed, I may have to get one of these myself. But it better have Zelda...

SEANMCAD

ok hold on a second.

what tangible game "progress" are we really talking about here?

Lets see the list

•1. play high end games without buying a video card.

•2. not have games in your bookshelves.

Ok not something trivial but we are not exactly talking about bringing in Microsoft Surfaces to the home for game play or anything now are we?

How does actual game play become better? More accessible yes, better no.

this opens up the door for devs to work with the top hardware availble (crytek should be happy about this :D)

think about being able to have instant accecse to a demo instead of spending hours downloading it...and mabe trials from what i read this really comes down to though 50 dollar a month umm no thx 5 dollar a month sign me up! :lol:

I have mixed reactions on it. I think its a bold step foward but there are far too many variables that can make this crash and burn, the biggest of which I see is my internet not being fast and stable enough. IIRC only about 50% of the US and Canadian citizens are broadband subscribers as well.GodModeEnabled

*img* One step closer... This is going to happen sooner or later.inoperativeRS

[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"]I have mixed reactions on it. I think its a bold step foward but there are far too many variables that can make this crash and burn, the biggest of which I see is my internet not being fast and stable enough. IIRC only about 50% of the US and Canadian citizens are broadband subscribers as well.rragnaar

Nobody seems to be taking a single important point into consideration. This service will eat your monthly downloads like a box full of candy given to a 2 year old. Streaming video, especially high def at 720p isn't a small issue, I don't care what compression your using, that's not gonna come in at anything under a GB for an hour. Seems a crazy waste fo bandwidth IMO.

Nobody seems to be taking a single important point into consideration. This service will eat your monthly downloads like a box full of candy given to a 2 year old. Streaming video, especially high def at 720p isn't a small issue, I don't care what compression your using, that's not gonna come in at anything under a GB for an hour. Seems a crazy waste fo bandwidth IMO.

DriftRS

The console makers just dropped a deuce.

I got one suggestion and 1 question:

Suggestion: It would be hella cool if they provided subscribers with harddrive space to buy game and place them into. Then as long as you subscribe to online you have access to the games that you have baught(from anywhere).

Question: This is like the most important thing to me in the video game industry right now.... Will Onlive be communist sellouts(like Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft)and censor game ratings?? Will they allow AO games??

[QUOTE="summerskin"][QUOTE="PetJel"]I like the idea. No more hackers, no more lag no more pc overheating, no more broken pc parts,

I think it's an interesting concept. It's actually ironic to me because in our company at leastwe've been rearchitecting our products to support the functionality required to provide the software as a service in just such a cloud model (multi-tenancy and such). I see why it's attractive to companies using software to manage their enterprise, because it removes the need to deal withthe installation, configuration, upgrades, integrations, maintenance, and all of the other aspects of managing software installations yourself on site. I see the model having long-term use in enterprise management software.

Having said that, I don't see it having as much long-term effect for something like gaming. It's interesting to me how they've managed to overcome the logistical problems in this kind of very basic user-level cloud model. That aspect of it is geeking me out, but other than that, I don't find it attractive to give another company that kind of ownership of my gaming experience or rather, of the source of my gaming experience. I guess I prefer thinking long-term with consoles. Ultimately consoles are gadgets, and cloud computing, SAAS, or any other SOA model is probably not going to completely replace that need to own the source of your tech experiences.

There isnt the technology available for it not to be laggysummerskin