OnLive: I'm in... and it's pretty sweet

Notes: 10mbps connection shared between other family members. I will try to get my network upgraded to see how much of a difference it makes.

Everything looks 10x better in motion.

This is the very nature of video streaming. Also note, my gaming system has the following to compare it again...

EVGA 275 GTX, 4g of Crucial Red Live, e9550 @ 4.3 ghz on air

If playing this quality game on a NETBOOK does not suprise you, there is no reason for me to even respond to you. Seriously.

So far...

1. Sound is a big jumpy at times

2. Video quality isn't crystal clear and there is framentation at times. However, this may be due to my network connection.

3. VIRTUALLY ZERO control lag... seriously.













More to come... if you want me to try something, I will. Just ask.

OnLive = Fail

That looks ugly I have Just Cause 2 and that looks like the game is set to medium texture.

Have fun when your ISP sends you a letter about your 500 gig usage in one month problem.

Also have fun with no mods or most of the stuff that actually makes PC gaming great.

I seriously cannot see why anyone would use this service. Such a big waste.

Why would you want 'virtually zero controller lag' when you can have no controller lag?

Sorry, but are these the ONLY games?

I seriously cannot see why anyone would use this service. Such a big waste.

Why would you want 'virtually zero controller lag' when you can have no controller lag?

Oonga

uh...because you pay absolutly nothing for hardware?...ever?

is it really that hard to see why?

I seriously cannot see why anyone would use this service. Such a big waste.

Why would you want 'virtually zero controller lag' when you can have no controller lag?

Oonga

[QUOTE="Oonga"]

I seriously cannot see why anyone would use this service. Such a big waste.

Why would you want 'virtually zero controller lag' when you can have no controller lag?

SquatsAreAwesom

i think onlive should have different qualitys for different connections i mean its not a pc fgs they should do the gfx beyond the pc spec cos its limitless

[QUOTE="Oonga"]

I seriously cannot see why anyone would use this service. Such a big waste.

Why would you want 'virtually zero controller lag' when you can have no controller lag?

SquatsAreAwesom

OnLive = Fail

Modern_Unit

[QUOTE="Oonga"]

I seriously cannot see why anyone would use this service. Such a big waste.

Why would you want 'virtually zero controller lag' when you can have no controller lag?

SquatsAreAwesom

My computer which costs 450-500 now (built it in 2007 for 650-700) can max out Just Cause 2 at a much higher resolution.

Onlive allows for no mods which is what makes PC gaming great.

Sure you won't use high wattage yourself but the bandwidth usage per month will be many hundreds of gigs and your ISP will not like that even if you are supposed to have unlimited use.

If you have a set amount of bandwidth then you will use it up very quickly.

You can only play while online and when you cancel your subscription you lose everything.

You never own the material and you never get the same visual quality.

So many things wrong with Onlive, it will surely fail.

[QUOTE="Oonga"]

I seriously cannot see why anyone would use this service. Such a big waste.

Why would you want 'virtually zero controller lag' when you can have no controller lag?

cobrax25

uh...because you pay absolutly nothing for hardware?...ever?

is it really that hard to see why?

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"][QUOTE="SquatsAreAwesom"] lmao, nice troll attempt ( i hope for your sake )SquatsAreAwesom

Well i aslo have it and its running good.I just got splinter cell convictions for free : D. its not gonna replace my 360 though .

[QUOTE="SquatsAreAwesom"][QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"] That footage looks like it's running at low settings at 800x600 resolution. A pre built Dell with a 8200GS IGP could play the game better then that.MasterC5

Can you give us a screenshot of Crysis. I may well look into this if it expands into my area. What are the pros and cons? What kind of framerate are you getting? How much does it cost to rent a game/ buy a game?designer-

[QUOTE="MasterC5"]

[QUOTE="SquatsAreAwesom"] ............... that's because I wanted to take a screen shot of it. I'm running it in windowed mode, instead of full screen.SquatsAreAwesom

If you are playing a windowed version of a game at 800x600 res and then you go to full screen it is still at 800x600 res.

Seems like Onlive is bringing out the people who are totally ignorant about computers and PC gaming.

[QUOTE="MasterC5"]

[QUOTE="SquatsAreAwesom"] ............... that's because I wanted to take a screen shot of it. I'm running it in windowed mode, instead of full screen.SquatsAreAwesom

It doesn't...

[QUOTE="SquatsAreAwesom"][QUOTE="MasterC5"]Resolution doesn't change in windowed mode

Hakkai007

If you are playing a windowed version of a game at 800x600 res and then you go to full screen it is still at 800x600 res.

This is the same thing as taking a 720p video running on a media player at native resolution..... versus shrinking the video in half by dragging the window smaller. The rendering is 720p, but the native output to your screen and your capture device is LESS then 720p.

If you want to prove me wrong, take this image, downsize it by 50%... and keep the resolution at 1280x720: http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/zixpk/1280x720_wallpaper_zixpkcom-1.jpg

kthx

*sigh*

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="SquatsAreAwesom"] This is scary. I have one person who thinks a network card consumes more wattage then a gpu. Now I have someone who thinks a smaller window size doesn't result in a lower resolution screen capture. Amazing.SquatsAreAwesom

If you are playing a windowed version of a game at 800x600 res and then you go to full screen it is still at 800x600 res.

This is the same thing as taking a 720p video running on a media player at native resolution..... versus shrinking the video in half by dragging the window smaller. The rendering is 720p, but the native output to your screen and your capture device is LESS then 720p.

If you want to prove me wrong, take this image, downsize it by 50%... and keep the resolution at 1280x720: http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/zixpk/1280x720_wallpaper_zixpkcom-1.jpg

kthx

*sigh*

Why is there so much hate for something that could potentially change the way people game. Whatever you may think of the service in the current state, surely people can see the potential of something like this. I know more then a few who may well be interested in picking this up, its just a matter of it working as advertised..designer-

[QUOTE="SquatsAreAwesom"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

If you are playing a windowed version of a game at 800x600 res and then you go to full screen it is still at 800x600 res.

WhenCicadasCry

This is the same thing as taking a 720p video running on a media player at native resolution..... versus shrinking the video in half by dragging the window smaller. The rendering is 720p, but the native output to your screen and your capture device is LESS then 720p.

If you want to prove me wrong, take this image, downsize it by 50%... and keep the resolution at 1280x720: http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/zixpk/1280x720_wallpaper_zixpkcom-1.jpg

kthx

*sigh*

I played AC2 at E3 and I wasn't impressed. It looked and ran worse than the 360 version, and the compression was pretty bad. It absolutely cannot handle really dynamic scenes (explosions, fast moving vehicles, swift camera rotations) which tend to happen a lot in video games.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="SquatsAreAwesom"] This is scary. I have one person who thinks a network card consumes more wattage then a gpu. Now I have someone who thinks a smaller window size doesn't result in a lower resolution screen capture. Amazing.SquatsAreAwesom

If you are playing a windowed version of a game at 800x600 res and then you go to full screen it is still at 800x600 res.

This is the same thing as taking a 720p video running on a media player at native resolution..... versus shrinking the video in half by dragging the window smaller. The rendering is 720p, but the native output to your screen and your capture device is LESS then 720p.

If you want to prove me wrong, take this image, downsize it by 50%... and keep the resolution at 1280x720: http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/zixpk/1280x720_wallpaper_zixpkcom-1.jpg

kthx

*sigh*

So when you switch to window mode are you allowed to shrink the window or is it locked?

And if it is a smaller version then it should look better with that compression in size but it doesn't.

By just looking at that picture and the fact people are stating that its minimized more of a downsample of what you will get fullscreen, looking at the anti-aliasing at that resolution seems a little disconcerting. Looks like x2-x4 anti aliasing in 800x600 resolution base on that picture.(who knows once its fullscreen) This could work ok but I wouldn't want to have my network being pounded on all night to play a game. As I am in the US, I would expect alot of bandwidth limiting from my ISP after playing onlive for a long time. They already do it to me if I watch to many streams from hulu and youtube.

Why is there so much hate for something that could potentially change the way people game. Whatever you may think of the service in the current state, surely people can see the potential of something like this. I know more then a few who may well be interested in picking this up, its just a matter of it working as advertised..designer-

From what I understand, even after paying the monthly fee you have to pay full retail price for the games. And when you cancel the service, you lose access to those games.

I'm sorry, but with a plan like that I hope this service fails and burns into the ground. They should at least offer a download option for the games that you paid for should you decide to cancel. :|

[QUOTE="designer-"]Why is there so much hate for something that could potentially change the way people game. Whatever you may think of the service in the current state, surely people can see the potential of something like this. I know more then a few who may well be interested in picking this up, its just a matter of it working as advertised..ianuilliam

One question, what happen if you lost connection in a middle of a game?

OnLive is great for the past, and great for the future, but till we get more tech in the user hand, we wont have unlimited true bandwidth again that have a high enough MB/S

One question, what happen if you lost connection in a middle of a game?

DarkblueNinja

[QUOTE="zyrumtumtuggerd"][QUOTE="SquatsAreAwesom"] Faceplant. The power of a $2k computer at your hands for $15/mo that can play on $300 netbooks, or a $75 micro console. The cost / benefit is insane if this service *works*. Aside from the fact that you aren't spending insane amounts on a computer anymore, you also going to be saving a HUGE amount on the electricity bill. Consider the wattage used by a beefy computer versus a netbook. 500 watts versus 100 watts. Do the math.SquatsAreAwesom

That doesn't even come close to 2000 dollar gaming PC.

My 1000 dollar gaming PC is way ahead of those screens.

This is from my 260, which would equal a 700 dollar pc.

[QUOTE="DarkblueNinja"]

One question, what happen if you lost connection in a middle of a game?

SquatsAreAwesom

but for how long will it pause