How Has OnLive "Bastardize" Gaming?

People are acting as if OnLive is the damnation of gaming. Last time I checked, piracy and DLCs were the enemies. So with that said, why is there so much hate on OnLive? Or are the haters just simply hating because theyre trying to vent off their mediocratic lifestyle?

My philosophy is: If you don't like OnLive, then don't buy it. Talking about how much it sucks (when you dont even own it) contributes nothing to society or system wars. The only thing that we can read is how big of a whiner you are. Its almost as if you're babies. Its pathetic.

But sorry, I digress, why is there so much hate for OnLive and how has it killed gaming? Because the way I see it, streamable games via the Internet is revolutionary and I am almost positive that Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony will all integrate that feature in their next gen console.

What say you whiners and babies?

What say you whiners and babies?

suitmypants

Well, whiners and babies normally make threads whinning on how they can't accept people just don't like OnLive.

[QUOTE="suitmypants"]

What say you whiners and babies?

GreenGoblin2099

Well, whiners and babies normally make threads whinning on how they can't accept people just don't like OnLive.

It's taking even more control out of the hands of gamers. People complain often enough about DD, but services like Steam allow you to backup games to your HDD or to DVD. Onlive takes a different approach in allowing you to rent a game or rent a game. It's only available so long as it's on the servers, and they even tell you a minimum time it'll be available for (showing that it will not be available after a set period).

That being said, it's an issue with the company itself, rather than the technology. The idea behind streaming gaaming is an excellent one, especially allowing people to play on a variety of products. The issue itself is with Onlive.

It hasn't and it will probably never get a chance to.

[QUOTE="GreenGoblin2099"]

[QUOTE="suitmypants"]

What say you whiners and babies?

suitmypants

Well, whiners and babies normally make threads whinning on how they can't accept people just don't like OnLive.

Read those "hate" threads and you'll understand... don't just come here asking what has been said a million times with pretty solid basis.

OnLive is the evolutionary step of digital distribution. Most console gamers are opposed to digital distribution because they feel like the physical copy has some meaning, despite it doesnt. The few advantages of physical media do not outweigh the massive advantages of a well made digital distribution system. Of course, by "well made" its not likely to ever appear on a console because the manufacturers wil have tight grips and control over it, unlike the PC that allows competing distribution systems.

Now, there are additional disadvantages to OnLive such as the requirements of an always-on connection, input lag, variable and usually lower quality visuals, no access to game files (so no unendoresed mods), and a few others. However, its biggest issues are likely to disappear as network infrastructures continues to improve. People were on 56K - now most people are on broadband. Soon enough msot people will be on fiber optics. This will greatly diminish OnLive's biggest disadvantages.

But alot of that has to do with plain old fear; As Onlive shows success, so does the "death" of physical media. Console gamers dont seem to want that.

[QUOTE="suitmypants"][QUOTE="GreenGoblin2099"]

Well, whiners and babies normally make threads whinning on how they can't accept people just don't like OnLive.

GreenGoblin2099

Read those "hate" threads and you'll understand... don't just come here asking what has been said a million times with pretty solid basis.

it hasn't. its just given gamers more options and more choice. SW just can't deal with change and can't stand the fact its not 1999 anymore

[QUOTE="GreenGoblin2099"]

[QUOTE="suitmypants"] Or they could be simply trying to understand where this unfounded hate is coming fromsuitmypants

Read those "hate" threads and you'll understand... don't just come here asking what has been said a million times with pretty solid basis.

lol or you could just avoid those "hate" threads yourself and stop pretending you're the cool one here... :lol:

its a model of selling games where you won't own any games, your at the complete mercy of the service and if it catches on I don't see it being a good way in any shape or form. At least with DD if they stop hosting the game on the server you'll have been able to back up and play the client. savagetwinkie

I could say the same for Cable TV, your power/water utility company, NetFlix, and every subscription based MMO service.

Yet they have all proven to be successful models.

Well, is not i'm against the service or the technology, is just that i like to own my games instead of pretending that i own them, and yes, i have Steam and is completely different than this Onlive joke.

OnLive is the evolutionary step of digital distribution. Most console gamers are opposed to digital distribution because they feel like the physical copy has some meaning, despite it doesnt. The few advantages of physical media do not outweigh the massive advantages of a well made digital distribution system. Of course, by "well made" its not likely to ever appear on a console because the manufacturers wil have tight grips and control over it, unlike the PC that allows competing distribution systems.

Now, there are additional disadvantages to OnLive such as the requirements of an always-on connection, input lag, variable and usually lower quality visuals, no access to game files (so no unendoresed mods), and a few others. However, its biggest issues are likely to disappear as network infrastructures continues to improve. People were on 56K - now most people are on broadband. Soon enough msot people will be on fiber optics. This will greatly diminish OnLive's biggest disadvantages.

But alot of that has to do with plain old fear; As Onlive shows success, so does the "death" of physical media. Console gamers dont seem to want that.

XaosII

[QUOTE="suitmypants"]

[QUOTE="GreenGoblin2099"]

Read those "hate" threads and you'll understand... don't just come here asking what has been said a million times with pretty solid basis.

GreenGoblin2099

lol or you could just avoid those "hate" threads yourself and stop pretending you're the cool one here... :lol:

thanks for the info. I can see why people do dislike Onlive---but I don't approve the hate that it's getting. In my opinion, just let the people play OnLive. If people want to waste their money on it--go ahead. Its not doing anything to gaming or society.suitmypants

That's not entirely true. Whilst it's pushing toward stream gaming - which isn't the issue - it's the payment structure, that if proven effective, other businesses may adopt.

[QUOTE="GreenGoblin2099"]

[QUOTE="suitmypants"] Or I can do what I want. I've read some threads and I got sick of trying to fish out an answer after reading too many OnLive suxx or OnLive is a joke. 90% of System War posts are all joke and to make my life easier I like to post a topic. So I suggest if it really irks you that "countless" of threads (which so far I can see two) are being posted, you can ignore this topic instead of commenting on how I need to read other topics. You're not my spouse, child, parent, friend, sibling, co worker, or boss so don't tell me what to do. thanks and have a great day.

suitmypants

lol or you could just avoid those "hate" threads yourself and stop pretending you're the cool one here... :lol:

It's not the fact that you are asking this or trying to understand... it's the fact that you automatically labeled almost everyone here as a whiner and a baby just because most people don't dig what OnLive offers.

OnLive has potential, but not on the short term and not for everybody IMO.

[QUOTE="suitmypants"] thanks for the info. I can see why people do dislike Onlive---but I don't approve the hate that it's getting. In my opinion, just let the people play OnLive. If people want to waste their money on it--go ahead. Its not doing anything to gaming or society.lundy86_4

That's not entirely true. Whilst it's pushing toward stream gaming - which isn't the issue - it's the payment structure, that if proven effective, other businesses may adopt.

and I whole heartedly agree. Online steaming is something that can be beneficial to consoles. If the company (Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo/etc) wants to have a rental service, then let them have it. People do not have to buy their consoles---and if there are not too many sales, it can cause them to change their rental service. For what it's worth, online streaming is great and conveinent. But what companies want to do with it, its up to them and if the people would fork over money for it.suitmypants

I love the technology behind it. I was playing Batman AA on a laptop with a 4250 at reasonable performance. The problem was just the compression (I was using the wireless beta).

My issue just stands with the business model. I hope they adjust the rent or rent idea, so that the games are readily available for as long as the service runs, or just cut the prices of games substantially.

[QUOTE="suitmypants"][QUOTE="GreenGoblin2099"]

lol or you could just avoid those "hate" threads yourself and stop pretending you're the cool one here... :lol:

GreenGoblin2099

It's not the fact that you are asking this or trying to understand... it's the fact that you automatically labeled almost everyone here as a whiner and a baby just because most people don't dig what OnLive offers.

OnLive has potential, but not on the short term and not for everybody IMO.

I love the technology behind it. I was playing Batman AA on a laptop with a 4250 at reasonable performance. The problem was just the compression (I was using the wireless beta).

My issue just stands with the business model. I hope they adjust the rent or rent idea, so that the games are readily available for as long as the service runs, or just cut the prices of games substantially.

lundy86_4

Im not seeing a big difference between this and NetFlix. Is it not nearly the same, yet few take issues with NetFlix?

[QUOTE="GreenGoblin2099"]

[QUOTE="suitmypants"] Yeah because my topic is meant to be cool. As you can refer to my previous posts; I am trying to understand the hate that stems from OnLivesuitmypants

It's not the fact that you are asking this or trying to understand... it's the fact that you automatically labeled almost everyone here as a whiner and a baby just because most people don't dig what OnLive offers.

OnLive has potential, but not on the short term and not for everybody IMO.

It's cool, it's cool... I apologize too for any misunderstanding.

People are acting as if OnLive is the damnation of gaming. Last time I checked, piracy and DLCs were the enemies. So with that said, why is there so much hate on OnLive? Or are the haters just simply hating because theyre trying to vent off their mediocratic lifestyle?

My philosophy is: If you don't like OnLive, then don't buy it. Talking about how much it sucks (when you dont even own it) contributes nothing to society or system wars. The only thing that we can read is how big of a whiner you are. Its almost as if you're babies. Its pathetic.

But sorry, I digress, why is there so much hate for OnLive and how has it killed gaming? Because the way I see it, streamable games via the Internet is revolutionary and I am almost positive that Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony will all integrate that feature in their next gen console.

What say you whiners and babies?

suitmypants

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]its a model of selling games where you won't own any games, your at the complete mercy of the service and if it catches on I don't see it being a good way in any shape or form. At least with DD if they stop hosting the game on the server you'll have been able to back up and play the client. XaosII

I could say the same for Cable TV, your power/water utility company, NetFlix, and every subscription based MMO service.

Yet they have all proven to be successful models.

if onlive fails and you spent say... 500 dollars in games + subscriptions in 2 years

you will never get those 500 dollars back

if you lose your cable TV provider you don't "loose" anything you bought, only the subscription and you can switch to someone else

if onlive fails and you spent say... 500 dollars in games + subscriptions in 2 years

you will never get those 500 dollars back

ohthemanatee

I'm not seeing the issue here. You spent money every month for the TV subscription service. After it ends you are left with nothing.

OnLive offers two payment models: No monthly payments, but the fixed cost of the game. OR Monthly payments for a selection of titles. thats actually more flexible than TV cable providers. You ONLY have the option of monthly subscriptions. I know i'd much rather pay a one time fee for a handful of channels instead of a subscription for 100's of channels i dont care for.

I'm not seeing the issue here. You spent money every month for the TV subscription service. After it ends you are left with nothing.

OnLive offers two payment models: No monthly payments, but the fixed cost of the game. OR Monthly payments for a selection of titles. thats actually more flexible than TV cable providers. You ONLY have the option of monthly subscriptions. I know i'd much rather pay a one time fee for a handful of channels instead of a subscription for 100's of channels i dont care for.

XaosII

so either I buy a game i'll never own or rent a game I'll never buy?

not my style

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

I'm not seeing the issue here. You spent money every month for the TV subscription service. After it ends you are left with nothing.

OnLive offers two payment models: No monthly payments, but the fixed cost of the game. OR Monthly payments for a selection of titles. thats actually more flexible than TV cable providers. You ONLY have the option of monthly subscriptions. I know i'd much rather pay a one time fee for a handful of channels instead of a subscription for 100's of channels i dont care for.

ohthemanatee

so either I buy a game i'll never own or rent a game I'll never buy?

not my style

Like NetFlix? Or your tv cable service? Even your cellphone works this way... you "rent" service.

[QUOTE="ohthemanatee"]

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

I'm not seeing the issue here. You spent money every month for the TV subscription service. After it ends you are left with nothing.

OnLive offers two payment models: No monthly payments, but the fixed cost of the game. OR Monthly payments for a selection of titles. thats actually more flexible than TV cable providers. You ONLY have the option of monthly subscriptions. I know i'd much rather pay a one time fee for a handful of channels instead of a subscription for 100's of channels i dont care for.

XaosII

so either I buy a game i'll never own or rent a game I'll never buy?

not my style

Like NetFlix? Or your tv cable service? Even your cellphone works this way... you "rent" service.

A) I don't use netflix

B)I wasn't aware I had the option to "buy" channels or cellphone services, but last time I checked, I have the option to buy movies and games, I don't see why I should loose that option

Well, is not i'm against the service or the technology, is just that i like to own my games instead of pretending that i own them, and yes, i have Steam and is completely different than this Onlive joke.

madsnakehhh

its not that much different, if you dont have internet for an amount of time then you wont be able to play too

A) I don't use netflix

B)I wasn't aware I had the option to "buy" channels or cellphone services, but last time I checked, I have the option to buy movies and games, I don't see why I should loose that option

ohthemanatee

Your original argument was that you dislike the fact that if the service either fails or you stop paying that you lose all the money you've spent.

My argument is that many things - things which you likely use/take advantage of - work in the same manner. Yet most people arent opposed to the way it works. If you really don't like it, then fortunately, other alternatives exist. In other models, you dont even have that option, which is why people probably accept it.

As it stands, i dont find the "im renting games" argument as very compelling. Thats how most subscription services work for the most part. OnLive is even better in that it offers a few different types of payment models. If the whole "renting games" thing means that much to you to not use it - i understand. Its a legitimate reason. i just dont think its a very good reason.

[QUOTE="ohthemanatee"]

A) I don't use netflix

B)I wasn't aware I had the option to "buy" channels or cellphone services, but last time I checked, I have the option to buy movies and games, I don't see why I should loose that option

XaosII

Your original argument was that you dislike the fact that if the service either fails or you stop paying that you lose all the money you've spent.

My argument is that many things - things which you likely use/take advantage of - work in the same manner. Yet most people arent opposed to the way it works. If you really don't like it, then fortunately, other alternatives exist. In other models, you dont even have that option, which is why people probably accept it.

As it stands, i dont find the "im renting games" argument as very compelling. Thats how most subscription services work for the most part. OnLive is even better in that it offers a few different types of payment models. If the whole "renting games" thing means that much to you to not use it - i understand. Its a legitimate reason. i just dont think its a very good reason.

the problem is most of the examples you provided don't have the option to buy something.

Games and movies have always given you the option to rent or buy them and I prefer the latter

I think Onlive is a good service, but I also think that it was a mistake to debut it only in the US. Europe has much better connection speeds (with little or no bandwidth caps) and it would be a great choice for an Onlive-type service.

[QUOTE="madsnakehhh"]

Well, is not i'm against the service or the technology, is just that i like to own my games instead of pretending that i own them, and yes, i have Steam and is completely different than this Onlive joke.

HFkami

its not that much different, if you dont have internet for an amount of time then you wont be able to play too

Nop, there are offline modes in Steam from what i remember, besides you have much more control over the games you own, like mods.

[QUOTE="HFkami"]

[QUOTE="madsnakehhh"]

Well, is not i'm against the service or the technology, is just that i like to own my games instead of pretending that i own them, and yes, i have Steam and is completely different than this Onlive joke.

madsnakehhh

its not that much different, if you dont have internet for an amount of time then you wont be able to play too

Nop, there are offline modes in Steam from what i remember, besides you have much more control over the games you own, like mods.

but you cant acces the offline mode all time, do you really think it will work over 6 month or so?

I prefer owning my games at full price, not renting them at full-or close to full price. even when I don't feel a game deserves the $60 retail price there's a used game market that you can rely on. With onlive there isn't since you don't technically own the games and there's no way to resell them.

If more companys start to adopt this type of service, gamers choices are even moreso limited.

Sure, it's not so bad now because you can choose from the PS3, Wii, 360, or Onlive. Seeing as this must look attractive to MS + Sony + Nintendo (eliminating used game markets, eliminating pirating, eliminating the need to produce expensive hardware and only having to rely on maintaining expensive servers, those choices might become limited.

Sony has already taken what seems to be the first step to cloud gaming by introducing cloud storage to PSN+ users.

[QUOTE="madsnakehhh"]

[QUOTE="HFkami"]

its not that much different, if you dont have internet for an amount of time then you wont be able to play too

HFkami

Nop, there are offline modes in Steam from what i remember, besides you have much more control over the games you own, like mods.

but you cant acces the offline mode all time, do you really think it will work over 6 month or so?

Still, there is an offline mode, and i don't know if you can access all the time to this mode or not, however, like i said, at least exist, not to mention Steam give you access to the files so you can make mods, and any PC gamer will tell you how important mods are.