OnLive: May change the way you play PC Games?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]
[QUOTE="fun-da-mental"]
Lot of people are jumping on the bandwagon without considering the flaws of this service. First of all, people need to stop calling this new or revolutionary technology. This is 30 yr old refined technology that has been used in many mainframes terminal to host systems. Webservers and web farms work the same way.
You will be paying monthly fee for this service to this one company in order to access or play your purchased games. You won't be able to access or play your games if you cancel your service. At the rate of $20 a month, the annual cost would be $240 a year just for subscription. With that much money, you could buy decent video card or game console or 5 games which you can keep it for rest of your life. This is not revolutionary, this is clever scam to get more of your money. At the end of the day, you will be paying more and still won't fully own any game or console. Don't forget the the lag, downtime, server and billing issues that will add extra frustration. Lot of stupid people will buy into this crap thinking it is cheaper. IMO, this mainly benefits the publishers and devlopers because of reduced distribution costs.
fun-da-mental
But you are assuming that I'll keep the subcription for the entire year. As of right now, i'm only interested in TWO PC games. Crysis and Crysis Warhead. I can easily beat these games in a month. So even if it costs me $70-100 (a very high estimate), I'm fine with it. At least, I wouldnt have to spend $600 on building a PC and then $70 for both Crysis and Crysis Warhead.
You are also assuming that EVERYONE likes to OWN games. I like to PLAY them. I rent games all the time and only buy the ones I would wanna play again. I'm sure there are others like me who feel the same.
Lag, Server downtime and billing issues are already present in console gaming. Just two days ago, PSN was down for a full 5 hours, downloading stuff from PSN during rush hours can be a pain in the neck and lag is a reality that every online game has to face.
Again, it's too early to say anything about the service, but calling everyone who is optimistic about this service "stupid" and calling the service itself a scam is just nonsense.
So you and people like you will be willing to play all your games (new, old, single player and multiplayer) in single month to avoid subscritpion cost?. Sorry but most casual to die hard gamers don't play all their games in just one month. WOW and other online games has millions of people playing regularly over the years. I rent a lot of games too and I can do so whenever I feel without worrying about playing all my games in single month or paying extra cost of subscription. $600 you pay for hardware is YOUR own property that you invested, it has other benefits than just playing games and can last 3-4 years. With subscription model, you won't fully own single game or hardware and could still cost you same or more.
You mentioned about PSN downtime, which is exact reason why I don't like the idea of depending on streaming and downloading games online.
That's not what I said.
This service isn;t for everyone. Even the OnLive guy himself said so. The service interests me and those who are like me. If you don't like it, dont use it.
Im with you 100%, this isnt any future I care to partake in either.I won't be putting any money into this. Personally I think it incredibly risky and almost foolish to spend money on something so volatile as something like this sounds. This kind of system doesn't free you instead the more money you spend the more tied down to it you are because it leaves you with nothing tangible should you ever decide to stop using it. The more games you buy for it the more incentive you have to keep paying for the service because it's either that or you lose everything you spent money on for it when you had it.
Archangel3371
If im remembering correctly, Sony and MS hinted, when talking up this current gen of systems, that digital distribution was a part of the reason they added HDD to their systems, so i dont think they are sweating this too much. In fact, I think they are waiting to see what works and what doesnt and how to incorporate that into their plans. I doubt this will make the splash some people are predicting (I dont see the industry being snatched out from under the big 3), but it will help to shape what's coming. GTA 4, Halo 3, etc, made tons of first day money, you wont see publishers trading that for OnLive rentals, previews, subscription fees, etc. any time soon.
For $#!+$ and giggles, Im going to say that 3rd parties will use this as a cheap way to redistribute their catalog of games (through OnLive and the eventual Sony, MS & Nintendo versions). Like releasing the all the Ninja Gaiden games to promote the release of Ninja Gaiden 5 or whatever the we would be up to at that point.
Wow, such a huge response from the community (Just got back from after a day of moving). The reactions from what I can see are a mixed bag. Like I said from my original post, this should just be considered as another option. I definitely don't see it as something that will take control of PC gaming, but instead may bring in a new crowd. That is to say if things go well for this service. I myself wouldn't be interested in this kind of thing for now (hell, I'm still not comfortable with digital distribution), but it does make things easy on both sides.
This service isn;t for everyone. Even the OnLive guy himself said so. The service interests me and those who are like me. If you don't like it, dont use it.Then it won't change or revolutionize a damn thing. Going forward, thanks to Nintendo, having a product that appeals to and can be used by everyone is going to be a requirement. Also, you just want to use it to play Crysis? The cost of getting the kit, subscribing, paying for the stream, and playing it will be pretty ridiculous for something you're going to play once or twice within a month or whatever. Crysis is neat, but it's still just an FPS. You've played a ton of those as is. This one is just a very, very, very pretty one. That alone just isn't worth all that hassle. Upgrade your PC and get both Crysis and a slew of other noteworthy PC games from other genres, much more bang for your buck.S0lidSnake
I wasn't saying that Steam had the same hurdles as OnLive faces, I'm saying it's unrealistic to expect new technologies to work without a hitch from day one and foolish to dismiss them without giving them time to be fully tested in real-world conditions. Also, they're still figuring out the pricing model. It is possible (and would be wise for them) to have sort of a Silver subscription with which you could access demos and videos or some kind of trial periods.UpInFlames
Nothing foolish about dismissing DRM in it's absolute ultimate form, nor is their anything foolish about opposing the absolute end of consumer rights and ownership in the videogame hobby. It is, however, foolish to ignore all the insanely numerous pitfalls of this kind of technology and blindly embrace it. Honestly? I'm showing my forum age here, but....
This OnLive thing = The Phantom
You = Ashur
This is forum history repeating itself, and it'll end the exact same way.
Then it won't change or revolutionize a damn thing. Going forward, thanks to Nintendo, having a product that appeals to and can be used by everyone is going to be a requirement. Also, you just want to use it to play Crysis? The cost of getting the kit, subscribing, paying for the stream, and playing it will be pretty ridiculous for something you're going to play once or twice within a month or whatever. Crysis is neat, but it's still just an FPS. You've played a ton of those as is. This one is just a very, very, very pretty one. That alone just isn't worth all that hassle. Upgrade your PC and get both Crysis and a slew of other noteworthy PC games from other genres, much more bang for your buck.[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]This service isn;t for everyone. Even the OnLive guy himself said so. The service interests me and those who are like me. If you don't like it, dont use it.
RandolphScott
Let me be clear, I dont really care it is revolution or not. I just think that if it works like they said it would then it would be a service I'd be very interested in. This service is NOT for everyone especially not for most americans who think 768K DSL is broadband. In the GT interview, he mentioned how even a 1.5 Mbps connection is only good for SD resolutions and that you'll need at least a 4Mbps + connection to get 720p resolution. Now, we all know very few americans actually have a 4 MBps or better connection. He talked about the college students residing in dorms with their laptops (that's me) and how the service was built with these college students in mind. They know who their audience is and they obviously aren't cutting corners trying to make their service appeal to those with 768K connections.
I'm a graphics whore and I haven't seen anything that looks as good as Crysis. It's a game I HAVE to play. That said, upgrading my PC just isn't on my to do list right now, I'm happy with my laptop.
[QUOTE="RandolphScott"]
[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]This service isn;t for everyone. Even the OnLive guy himself said so. The service interests me and those who are like me. If you don't like it, dont use it.
Then it won't change or revolutionize a damn thing. Going forward, thanks to Nintendo, having a product that appeals to and can be used by everyone is going to be a requirement. Also, you just want to use it to play Crysis? The cost of getting the kit, subscribing, paying for the stream, and playing it will be pretty ridiculous for something you're going to play once or twice within a month or whatever. Crysis is neat, but it's still just an FPS. You've played a ton of those as is. This one is just a very, very, very pretty one. That alone just isn't worth all that hassle. Upgrade your PC and get both Crysis and a slew of other noteworthy PC games from other genres, much more bang for your buck.Let me be clear, I dont really care it is revolution or not. I just think that if it works like they said it would then it would be a service I'd be very interested in. This service is NOT for everyone especially not for most americans who think 768K DSL is broadband. In the GT interview, he mentioned how even a 1.5 Mbps connection is only good for SD resolutions and that you'll need at least a 4Mbps + connection to get 720p resolution. Now, we all know very few americans actually have a 4 MBps or better connection. He talked about the college students residing in dorms with their laptops (that's me) and how the service was built with these college students in mind. They know who their audience is and they obviously aren't cutting corners trying to make their service appeal to those with 768K connections.
I'm a graphics whore and I haven't seen anything that looks as good as Crysis. It's a game I HAVE to play. That said, upgrading my PC just isn't on my to do list right now, I'm happy with my laptop.
Like I said before, I wouldn't use OnLive for everything and the main thing would be PC games that require expensive hardware. I definitely want to get my hands on Crysis. And to whoeverTF said 'Why get it just for Crysis'..well I know I'm not. I would get all the good PC games that wouldn't work on mines (which is all the current ones lol) and with CryEngine 3 coming to games around the corner, I'd buy some of those too.
so your saying your comp is if more power full then these servers and allways will be?
07pops07
Why is that so unreasonable? This company is going to have to buy 10's of thousands of PC (if they're legit), which means they're going to have to be economical in their purchases. Being economical means NOT buying top-of-the-line PC hardware, because the pricing on such hardware ramps up very quickly in the higher ranges (consequently causing the performance/price ratio to plummet).
Is it just me or does this thread seem a bit hot? :P
Well, as someone who is currently at GDC, I checked out the booth they have on the expo floor. The service, at least in its basic form is legit. They do have distribution deals with major publishers(i.e. Ubisoft, EA), so at least big players in the industry do consider the service somewhat viable. Not to mention that alone puts it above the infamous Phantom. They have several games up and running, although I personally only went and played UT3. The game played with minimal lag(not saying it was non-existant, but it was small), and ran as smooth as I expected it. From what the techs there said, they plan to have at least 2 server centers in the US, if not more as they add availability to different areas.
I'll poke around and ask more questions tomorrow. Heck, I'll ask questions from eveyone here if you all would like me to. I'll try to check back on this thread at around 2 pm PST.
Why is that so unreasonable? This company is going to have to buy 10's of thousands of PC (if they're legit), which means they're going to have to be economical in their purchases. Being economical means NOT buying top-of-the-line PC hardware, because the pricing on such hardware ramps up very quickly in the higher ranges (consequently causing the performance/price ratio to plummet)TeufelhuhnJust to add a bit more to your point, but even if they did buy top of the line at this moment, in less than a year, even faster components are going to hit the market. I have the choice of upgrading to better quality hardware- OnLive is not going to upgrade with that kind of frequency. Furthermore, with the current best quality image being just 720p, even a game like Crysis is able to run at relatively good quality on pretty low-end stuff now. Even my 3850 (with 256mb vram) can handle Crysis pretty well at that resolution, so they most assuredly would not be using anywhere near top of the line hardware. Plus the costs to ugprade all those systems, both in terms of hardware and manpower, make it unfeasible to have any kind of reasonable upgrade schedule. Given the technical hurdles have been discussed, even if they somehow overcame that, I could only see this kind of service working if it was marketed as a sort of quasi-rental service. With Netflix, there's the expectation that you never did own anything. And since the price is reasonable for that kind of service, it works. But I don't think it'll work if you try to "sell" a game and the consumer gets absolutely nothing in hand (I realize this is a corporation's dream). Either that or the prices are going to have to be ungodly low....like $10 per game at launch.
I am personaly very excited about onlive, and trying it out, but what Im more excited about is how this will effect the production of our next generation of consoles!
I think a mix of in house, and cloud computing would be perfect, however this may be TOO reliant on other facters to be truely great!
This is really going to help define the future of not only gaming services, but also hardware. OnLive does truely have great potential... Potential being the keyword!
Cant wait until winter (hopefully mid-summer), to set my OnLive "microconsole" next to my XBOX 360 "monsterconsole"
EDIT-----------------
If this gets enough support...... NUFF SAID
Actually most console manufacturers make a loss on each console sold and make their profits from licensing games for their platform. So this looks like a more cost effective way to get games into user's houses. While i'm sure the concept is the future of gaming , perhaps onlive will fail. I'm sure if its successful the big three will eventually make their own simular competetive services and with the money and influence a company like microsoft or Sony has they could perhaps bully onlive out of the market by buying out publishers.
Why is that so unreasonable? This company is going to have to buy 10's of thousands of PC (if they're legit), which means they're going to have to be economical in their purchases. Being economical means NOT buying top-of-the-line PC hardware, because the pricing on such hardware ramps up very quickly in the higher ranges (consequently causing the performance/price ratio to plummet).Teufelhuhn
It's a good thing then that they don't need to have all high-end servers because most games aren't high-end. They can have high-end servers to handle high-end games, but they can also have loads of mid-range or even flat-out low-end servers as well that would be able to handle the vast majority of games.
[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]Why is that so unreasonable? This company is going to have to buy 10's of thousands of PC (if they're legit), which means they're going to have to be economical in their purchases. Being economical means NOT buying top-of-the-line PC hardware, because the pricing on such hardware ramps up very quickly in the higher ranges (consequently causing the performance/price ratio to plummet).UpInFlames
It's a good thing then that they don't need to have all high-end servers because most games aren't high-end. They can have high-end servers to handle high-end games, but they can also have loads of mid-range or even flat-out low-end servers as well that would be able to handle the vast majority of games.
I was actually thinking about this and started wondering whether or not it would be possible to use "super-computers" as servers, which would be vastly more powerful than normal desktop gaming rigs? It's easy to build computers with number crunching prowess but what about graphic cards and such? It could be cheaper to build fifty of those than 2000 normal high-end machines.:roll: oh please...:roll: Count me out. The home PC turned into nothing but an In-Home electronic Advertising Billboard.
Seriously- how many hackers, online gate jumpers, bothersome dloads, and worst of all, spammy commercials are we going to have to endure with this thing now? I own my games. I can sell them that way if need be. They've taken all those (now extinct) Video Game/MovieRental shops and packaged them for an electronic income, using more credit card only transactions on my already over-spammed PC. Price tag is extremely ebay vague, and I send them money with nothing tangible to own for the effort.
How's that exciting?
Keep outta my stuff already!!!!
I see where you are coming from. Don't get me wrong, I am rooting for this thing to succeed, and I wouldn't dismiss something that has been developed through the last 7 years by people that seem to know their stuff. Not without giving it the benefit of the doubt, at least. The thing is that if they plan to charge people for this, the timeframe they will have to fix any potential screwups won't be nearly as permissive as if they were a free service, and thus, they need to have this thing work properly under any circumstance, from 20 MB fiber connections, to wonky 1 MB ones; from people located within a couple miles from the servers, to guys a thousand miles apart from them, because they need to get as many people in as possible in order not to sink. You are right, this is a step in the right direction, from many standpoints, but for a service scheduled to launch this year, the technical issues it is facing are still huge. The upcoming beta, even if it is not an open one, will shed a lot more light on how are they going to overcome latency issues. I guess we'll see then.SteelAttack
I think the timeframe can be very much flexible. I would compare this service to cable TV. It will probably see penetration in urban areas first and foremost because it has the best chance to work there due to the vicinity of the servers. It probably won't work well (or at all) in distant areas. I don't see this as critical. As long as the thing actually works, starting small is not a setback. I don't expect a miracle, this isn't going to happen overnight. It will take a long time to get there. Cable TV and broadband didn't fail simply because they couldn't reach everyone right off the bat - they still can't. It's a constant work in progress.
Oops didnt see this thread, and just started my own. looks like everyone is finding out about it at the same time lol.
Im open to the idea, its certainly got potential to go either way imo.
The potential upsides imo are
No more exclusives / being priced out of games because of their hardware demands or exclusivity,
Being able to play anywhere so long as you have a BB connection,
*Possibly* being cheaper to pay for games you play for a week then never play again, as oposed to paying full price for a game only to have it rotting on the bookshelf.
Having a potentially MUCH bigger online community as you will have former Xbox + PS + PC players all playing on the same "system"
Having this bigger audience makes developers more likely to take risks and thus give us more original IPs instead of "Resistence Gears Of Metal Duty Killzone 7"
Not having to install constant games / change discs
Harder to cheat? As the gamefiles are held on remote servers not on your pc / mac / console.
Potential downsides are
It may not actually work
Could be overly expensive, with pricing based on how good/popular the game is.
Modding will be impossible? If so creativity in the industry will be lowered, and potentially new blood may not come through anymore. if not, then scrap the note above about no cheats, as where there is modding, there will always be cheats lurking in the shadows.
TV users may get stuck with a bit of cheap looking plastic under it, instead of a nice shiny Sony badged bit of plastic.
But I think the overriding concern is, it may not work.
Will find out with the beta they are running in the summer. If it works, may be interesting to see where we end up.
I was actually thinking about this and started wondering whether or not it would be possible to use "super-computers" as servers, which would be vastly more powerful than normal desktop gaming rigs? It's easy to build computers with number crunching prowess but what about graphic cards and such? It could be cheaper to build fifty of those than 2000 normal high-end machines.inoperativeRS
Yes, there are super-servers with 8 quad-core processors and a bazillion gigabytes of memory. However they're completely useless for PC games, because PC games are designed to be run on consumer PC hardware. These games can barely take advantage of a dual-core CPU, never mind some 8-way beast. They also keep their memory usage within strict boundaries so that they can run on machines with 1-2GB of memory...which means that anything extra will just sit there unused.
As for the video cards...well that's easy because there are no super video cards for servers. The most powerful stuff out there is already available for consumers. You could say "well they couldn't they stick 4 GPU's in SLI or Crossfire into these things?", but that's unlikely for a few reasons:
-Not all games support it
-AFR (alternate frame rendering) adds additional latency and timing issues
-Decreases the price/performance ratio I mentioned earlier
[QUOTE="smerlus"]i'm glad people are finally coming back down to earth and realizing that Onlive isn't the end all gaming experience. It's not going to effect the Wii's market share because Onlive doesn't have the waggle gimmick and is Nintendo won't be putting their games on that system anytime soon. I'm surprised UIF is such a staunch supporter of this because it looks like this goes against the best parts of the PC gaming. That is building one's own super rig, tweaking the games to get them to play the way one wants and then mod capabilities. I really don't see mod communities thriving in this kind of environment. to me it will be a niche thing that i suppose has a group it's marketed to but is nothing to go all crazy about.SEANMCAD
I also dont think its going to affect the PC gamers unless they are mac becuase I would think that most of us PC gamers (like myself) really dont want to play our games on a TV.
There is no requirement that you play them on a TV, but you can if you want.OnLive can play games on the PC just as well as on a TV. In fact, all the games run on PCs. PCs that are supposed to be a lot better than the one you're using on your end. LordAndrewhowever you can't stream them on resolutions as good as you can on a high end gaming machine. My desk top has no problem running crysis and running it at a higher rez than what onlive can do...what's the benefit of onlive for me? paying for games i don't own running games at a lower graphics setting than what i have?
[QUOTE="LordAndrew"]OnLive can play games on the PC just as well as on a TV. In fact, all the games run on PCs. PCs that are supposed to be a lot better than the one you're using on your end. smerlushowever you can't stream them on resolutions as good as you can on a high end gaming machine. My desk top has no problem running crysis and running it at a higher rez than what onlive can do...what's the benefit of onlive for me? paying for games i don't own running games at a lower graphics setting than what i have? Hey, I'm not really sold on the idea either. It's definitely not for everyone.
I'm surprised UIF is such a staunch supporter of this because it looks like this goes against the best parts of the PC gaming. That is building one's own super rig, tweaking the games to get them to play the way one wants and then mod capabilities. I really don't see mod communities thriving in this kind of environment.smerlus
The best part of PC gaming are the games. The pros of this kind of service far outweigh the cons in my mind. Why? Because of the games. More games, unrestrictive development process for a potentially endless market resulting in more innovation, more risk-taking...more variety, independence. It will take away some inherent PC gaming freedoms, but it could give back so much more. I think the problem is people are thinking extremely short-term (what's it going to do for me today) whereas I'm thinking long-term and its larger implications.
[QUOTE="inoperativeRS"]I was actually thinking about this and started wondering whether or not it would be possible to use "super-computers" as servers, which would be vastly more powerful than normal desktop gaming rigs? It's easy to build computers with number crunching prowess but what about graphic cards and such? It could be cheaper to build fifty of those than 2000 normal high-end machines.Teufelhuhn
Yes, there are super-servers with 8 quad-core processors and a bazillion gigabytes of memory. However they're completely useless for PC games, because PC games are designed to be run on consumer PC hardware. These games can barely take advantage of a dual-core CPU, never mind some 8-way beast. They also keep their memory usage within strict boundaries so that they can run on machines with 1-2GB of memory...which means that anything extra will just sit there unused.
As for the video cards...well that's easy because there are no super video cards for servers. The most powerful stuff out there is already available for consumers. You could say "well they couldn't they stick 4 GPU's in SLI or Crossfire into these things?", but that's unlikely for a few reasons:
-Not all games support it
-AFR (alternate frame rendering) adds additional latency and timing issues
-Decreases the price/performance ratio I mentioned earlier Yeah I was aware of that 'normal' super-servers aren't very good gaming machines. I was more interested in the graphics cards. I mean, the CPU/RAM problems could be dealed with by programming with those kind of computers in mind (which would be a pain in the ass but still possible if this thing gets very popular, am I correct?).
I guess a better question would be "would it be possible to create super graphics cards which would be financially viable over normal ones for jobs such as these?" I am more interested in the possibilities of remotely rendered gaming in the near future than this service in particular.
[QUOTE="smerlus"]I'm surprised UIF is such a staunch supporter of this because it looks like this goes against the best parts of the PC gaming. That is building one's own super rig, tweaking the games to get them to play the way one wants and then mod capabilities. I really don't see mod communities thriving in this kind of environment.UpInFlames
The best part of PC gaming are the games. The pros of this kind of service far outweigh the cons in my mind. Why? Because of the games. More games, unrestrictive development process for a potentially endless market resulting in more innovation, more risk-taking...more variety, independence. It will take away some inherent PC gaming freedoms, but it could give back so much more. I think the problem is people are thinking extremely short-term (no, it won't replace the 360 or the Wii, not even the Xbox 720) whereas I'm thinking long-term and its larger implications.
I don't get why you're championing this system as a gateway to innovation and risk taking. the things holding back innovation and risk taking are developers and consumers...when onlive does come out it will be the same developers making the games and the same consumers renting/buying them all that changes is the way they are brought to the consumer. The same exact roadblocks for innovation and risktaking are there, they don't magically change or disappear.All the naysayers in this thread, and others, who havent even seen the thing in action yet are denouncing it as a failiure should check this quote from the endgadget site -
"But this is much more than empty rhetoric -- OnLive's been dropping jaws of the press who've seen it working this week. GameDaily dubbed the play "fantastic" after seeing Crysis streamed "smooth" off a server to a plain ol' MacBook laptop."
Sure, your going to need a hefty broadband service, 1.5Mbps will only produce Wii visuals, whereas you will need around 5Mbps for HD but this is simply a matter of time for many people. Most of Europe now has 4 times that available (some places 10 or 20 times that).
Its all in how it performs, and from those seeing it in San Fransisco the feedback seems very impressive. Ignore this at your peril, its the start of something.
Endgadget article - http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/24/onlive-killed-the-game-console-star/
*San Francisco* just to correct my bad spelling!
Heres another article on it from people who have tried it. http://videogames.yahoo.com/feature/new-tech-could-make-consoles-obsolete/1299562
Sorry for triple post but decent little video of it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5oIr4o_MIk
I seriously doubt they'll be able to bully OnLive if the service gets a good headstart. I think even Microsoft would struggle to be competition for OnLive if its everything its cracked up to be.Actually most console manufacturers make a loss on each console sold and make their profits from licensing games for their platform. So this looks like a more cost effective way to get games into user's houses. While i'm sure the concept is the future of gaming , perhaps onlive will fail. I'm sure if its successful the big three will eventually make their own simular competetive services and with the money and influence a company like microsoft or Sony has they could perhaps bully onlive out of the market by buying out publishers.
Cyborg_Hand
I guess a better question would be "would it be possible to create super graphics cards which would be financially viable over normal ones for jobs such as these?" I am more interested in the possibilities of remotely rendered gaming in the near future than this service in particular.
inoperativeRS
When it comes to high-end 3D graphics there are only 2 players in the market: ATI and Nvidia. Intel is planning on trying to break into that market as well. All 3 of these guys are heavily invested in a thick client model, so I don't see why they would even give these OnLive dudes the time of day. Matrox and PowerVR only really work in niche markets (like mobile devices).
So...that would mean this company would have to gather up their own team of uber-engineers and have them design brand new GPU's. But I guess that's as equally likely as them coming up with some ultra-1337 new video encoding format that somehow leaps and bounds better than what everyone else is using. :P
This should be required reading for anyone interested in the subject.http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/gdc-why-onlive-cant-possibly-work-article.
I read that dude's blog...he generally knows what he's talking about.Teufelhuhn
The AlternativeLet's say that I'm wrong. It's not completely unknown. I'm just a man (flesh and blood!) taking a pop at visionaries who reckon they have produced something truly epoch-making. But in order to make OnLive perform exactly as claimed right now, the company has to have achieved the following:
* 1. OnLive has mastered video compression that outstrips the best that current technologies can achieve by a vast margin. In short, it has outsmarted the smartest compressionists in the world, and not only that, it's doing it in real-time.
* 2. OnLive's unparalleled grasp of psychophysics means that it has all but eliminated the concept of IP lag during its seven years of "stealth development", succeeding where the best minds in the business have only met with limited success.
* 3. OnLive has developed a range of affordable PC-compatible super-computers and hardware video encoders that are generations beyond anything on the market at the moment.At some point, Occam's Razor, along with an ounce of basic common sense, has to step in and bring an end to this fantasy, no matter how much we want it to be true. OnLive boss Steve Perlmen remains adamant: "Perceptually, it appears the game is playing locally... what we have is something that is absolutely incredible. You should be sceptical. My first thinking was this shouldn't work, but it does."
So let's put it this way - I can't wait to be proved wrong.Eurogamerdude
Great read, Teuf. Thanks.
All the naysayers in this thread, and others, who havent even seen the thing in action yet are denouncing it as a failiure should check this quote from the endgadget site -
"But this is much more than empty rhetoric -- OnLive's been dropping jaws of the press who've seen it working this week. GameDaily dubbed the play "fantastic" after seeing Crysis streamed "smooth" off a server to a plain ol' MacBook laptop."
Sure, your going to need a hefty broadband service, 1.5Mbps will only produce Wii visuals, whereas you will need around 5Mbps for HD but this is simply a matter of time for many people. Most of Europe now has 4 times that available (some places 10 or 20 times that).
Its all in how it performs, and from those seeing it in San Fransisco the feedback seems very impressive. Ignore this at your peril, its the start of something.
Endgadget article - http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/24/onlive-killed-the-game-console-star/
I'd say something I played that was done in a controlled environment, was free, and in other words is no way any indication of what the final product will be like as fantastic too. It's a controlled demo. once you throw in people paying for it, people with the minimum requirements getting their 480p games, 100's of miles away from the servers with thousands of other people on the same service getting the same games you can get on other systems...i'm pretty sure this will all seem far less amazing than 20 people playing it for free in a premium setting.[QUOTE="nomadski69"]
All the naysayers in this thread, and others, who havent even seen the thing in action yet are denouncing it as a failiure should check this quote from the endgadget site -
"But this is much more than empty rhetoric -- OnLive's been dropping jaws of the press who've seen it working this week. GameDaily dubbed the play "fantastic" after seeing Crysis streamed "smooth" off a server to a plain ol' MacBook laptop."
Sure, your going to need a hefty broadband service, 1.5Mbps will only produce Wii visuals, whereas you will need around 5Mbps for HD but this is simply a matter of time for many people. Most of Europe now has 4 times that available (some places 10 or 20 times that).
Its all in how it performs, and from those seeing it in San Fransisco the feedback seems very impressive. Ignore this at your peril, its the start of something.
Endgadget article - http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/24/onlive-killed-the-game-console-star/
SEANMCAD
one question I have.
was crysis running as DirectX 10 and full video on all settings?
I can play Crysis on my laptop now, but guess what it looks A LOT better on my new desktop because of what?....settings.
This service (imo) isnt targetting people who have the sort of rig which can play Crysis DX10 on MAX settings at silly high resolutions. try doing that on a Netbook, or a MacBook, or a £200 desktop, or on a console. You cant. But with this service you can. It may only be 720p which vs PC monitors is obviously very low, but is comparable with most Xbox / PS games.
Point is, with this you can play Crysis on MAX settings (as the CEO stated in the interview you can watch on youtube) at a playable (and technically HD) resolution on a POS netbook, a Macbook, on your tv. If you have a rig which is absolutely incredible, well maybe the service wont be for you.
Other things ive read, seen, that interest me is being able to watch anyone anywhere LIVE playing a game you maybe have never seen in action before. Top gamers could end up with a worldwide audience as they play, pretty cool.
IF they can pull this off, and this is all based on technology none of us have ever seen and 7 years in the making, then this could be a VERY big thing.
Having thoughts this may not be available outside of the US at launch though, which would suck immesurably.
Im just quite eager for the summer when the BETA is out, and people can give their feedback on the experience.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment