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

until they offer you the chance to actually OWN the game you BOUGHT, this service is a horrible horrible idea. Why would you pay full price for a game you are essentially RENTING?VideoGameGuy

People see only cons of this technoly... but it has pros to return:

-No pay for hardware

-Easy live streaming

-Recording any moment of the game you want

-Fast start game up

It's very social solution

Zephernix from youtube review it and you can see it in action

People see only cons of this technoly... but it has pros to return:

-No pay for hardware

-Easy live streaming

-Recording any moment of the game you want

-Fast start game up

It's very social solution

Zephernix from youtube review it and you can see it in action

ShadowriverUB

I'm still on the waiting list...

[QUOTE="VideoGameGuy"]until they offer you the chance to actually OWN the game you BOUGHT, this service is a horrible horrible idea. Why would you pay full price for a game you are essentially RENTING?SquatsAreAwesom

The biggest barrier at the moment would be bandwidth. How big exactly are the OnLive streams? Let's be horribly optimistic and assume they require half a megabyte a second. That's about 2GB an hour. That means for those people on a generous internet plan would only be able to pull about 50hours a month of OnLive before they crack their cap. And that's even without any other downloading or internet use of any kind. For graphics that a sub-$300 computer could generate. No thanks.DJ_Lae

I dont know where you live, but people in the US generally dont have caps anyway, at least where I live..

People see only cons of this technoly... but it has pros to return:

-No pay for hardware

-Easy live streaming

-Recording any moment of the game you want

-Fast start game up

It's very social solution

Zephernix from youtube review it and you can see it in action

ShadowriverUB

A PC could do all of those.

The subscription eventually costs more than a PC in the long run.

My 3 year old PC (650USD) still plays just about any game at max settings at 1680x1050 res.

The computer is 3 years old, it will still do fine for another year.

So after 4 years the subscription for Onlive adds up to 720 USD.....more than my Computer.

[QUOTE="DJ_Lae"]The biggest barrier at the moment would be bandwidth. How big exactly are the OnLive streams? Let's be horribly optimistic and assume they require half a megabyte a second. That's about 2GB an hour. That means for those people on a generous internet plan would only be able to pull about 50hours a month of OnLive before they crack their cap. And that's even without any other downloading or internet use of any kind. For graphics that a sub-$300 computer could generate. No thanks.cobrax25

I dont know where you live, but people in the US generally dont have caps anyway, at least where I live..

Every ISP has a bandwidth limit even if they say unlimited. In every contract there is some sort of explanation that gives them the right to pull the plug or charge you more based on extensive bandwidth usage.

Plus the average bandwidth speed around here is only 3 megabits per sec.

To upgrade it costs 20 USD more a month so you would have to tack that on to Onlive subscription.

[QUOTE="DJ_Lae"]The biggest barrier at the moment would be bandwidth. How big exactly are the OnLive streams? Let's be horribly optimistic and assume they require half a megabyte a second. That's about 2GB an hour. That means for those people on a generous internet plan would only be able to pull about 50hours a month of OnLive before they crack their cap. And that's even without any other downloading or internet use of any kind. For graphics that a sub-$300 computer could generate. No thanks.cobrax25

I dont know where you live, but people in the US generally dont have caps anyway, at least where I live..

As stated above, almost all US isp's have caps but not as obvious. They just bandwidth limit you once you hit it and that I have experiences in Tennesse, Louisana, Texas and Florida in the last 5 years. (Comcast, Cox, suddenlink, and At&T). This is expecially so after the recent win for Comcast in court over the FCC ruling for net neutrality. Its just that alot of people don't pay attention that for no reason there internet service drops alot after downloading so much information in a month. Its not really a cap as they just throttle you because of your bandwidth usage regardless if you are just streaming lots of videos, downloading files or anything else.

[QUOTE="ShadowriverUB"]

People see only cons of this technoly... but it has pros to return:

-No pay for hardware

-Easy live streaming

-Recording any moment of the game you want

-Fast start game up

It's very social solution

Zephernix from youtube review it and you can see it in action

Hakkai007

A PC could do all of those.

The subscription eventually costs more than a PC in the long run.

My 3 year old PC (650USD) still plays just about any game at max settings at 1680x1050 res.

The computer is 3 years old, it will still do fine for another year.

So after 4 years the subscription for Onlive adds up to 720 USD.....more than my Computer.

My 6 year old Windows XP based PC can do all that...

Why would you pay to play at console settings? Just play on the console.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="ShadowriverUB"]

People see only cons of this technoly... but it has pros to return:

-No pay for hardware

-Easy live streaming

-Recording any moment of the game you want

-Fast start game up

It's very social solution

Zephernix from youtube review it and you can see it in action

Modern_Unit

A PC could do all of those.

The subscription eventually costs more than a PC in the long run.

My 3 year old PC (650USD) still plays just about any game at max settings at 1680x1050 res.

The computer is 3 years old, it will still do fine for another year.

So after 4 years the subscription for Onlive adds up to 720 USD.....more than my Computer.

My 6 year old Windows XP based PC can do all that...

Can it play Crysis at max settings? Or any of the new games out at max?

[QUOTE="Modern_Unit"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

A PC could do all of those.

The subscription eventually costs more than a PC in the long run.

My 3 year old PC (650USD) still plays just about any game at max settings at 1680x1050 res.

The computer is 3 years old, it will still do fine for another year.

So after 4 years the subscription for Onlive adds up to 720 USD.....more than my Computer.

Hakkai007

My 6 year old Windows XP based PC can do all that...

Can it play Crysis at max settings? Or any of the new games out at max?

I was referring to the other post

The biggest barrier at the moment would be bandwidth. How big exactly are the OnLive streams? Let's be horribly optimistic and assume they require half a megabyte a second. That's about 2GB an hour. That means for those people on a generous internet plan would only be able to pull about 50hours a month of OnLive before they crack their cap. And that's even without any other downloading or internet use of any kind. For graphics that a sub-$300 computer could generate. No thanks.DJ_Lae

Last I checked people were crapping themselves when Hulu was announced for consoles... when Netflix was announced to consoles. Last I was hearing, people were amazed they could get HD video rentals on the 360. It was all part of antying up between who got what.

However, now that its not about the 360 and PS3... its not going to work. Amazing.

[QUOTE="subrosian"]If you care about gaming or property rights, you shouldn't support OnLIVE, end of story. It shouldn't even be allowed to be posted on System Wars as anything more than "a failed plan to subvert property rights, lie to people and scam general audiences". Maybe a guy stands on the street corner waving a little flag "nothing to see here folks, just an investor scam that you don't want to get involved in". I don't understand why a company that SOLELY exists to rip off its investors, and only created a product to avoid jail time for fraud, would be supported by ANYONE.SquatsAreAwesom

PC =/= OnLive

[QUOTE="cobrax25"]

[QUOTE="DJ_Lae"]The biggest barrier at the moment would be bandwidth. How big exactly are the OnLive streams? Let's be horribly optimistic and assume they require half a megabyte a second. That's about 2GB an hour. That means for those people on a generous internet plan would only be able to pull about 50hours a month of OnLive before they crack their cap. And that's even without any other downloading or internet use of any kind. For graphics that a sub-$300 computer could generate. No thanks.Hakkai007

I dont know where you live, but people in the US generally dont have caps anyway, at least where I live..

Every ISP has a bandwidth limit even if they say unlimited. In every contract there is some sort of explanation that gives them the right to pull the plug or charge you more based on extensive bandwidth usage.

Plus the average bandwidth speed around here is only 3 megabits per sec.

To upgrade it costs 20 USD more a month so you would have to tack that on to Onlive subscription.

"So, if you look closely at what we explained on our website, the 5 megabits that we list is the marketing number you are probably going to need because what we find is most 5 megabit connections will deliver probably 4 megabits. The actual system needs about 4 megabits peak, not average. On average, we are running much lower than that. If you are really playing something like a driving game – driving games have constantly changing video, right? – so, we are pretty much running the system pretty high there. If you are running a game like that non-stop, you are probably averaging around 2 megabits a second. They may peak up to 4 and then it's below, but you know, that's assuming also that you're not taking a break, checking a leaderboard or doing something else. Let's just say that you're one hell of a non-stop, never take a break to go to the bathroom gamer, then you'd be using 2 megabits a second and, at 2 megabits a second, that's about a gigabyte an hour, okay? So, you'll then be able to play on Comcast for about 250 hours a month. Now let's say there's about 30 days a month, so it's about 9.5 hours a day. So, if you start playing games more than that, I suspect that Comcast may probably be a good thing for your social life if they put a cap at 9.5 hours, 30 days a month.

But the other thing about it is, I mean, so what's the worst case scenario there? Well, you've got to go to something less than HDTV. Now, the other thing that we talk about specifically is standard definition TV which will be, you know, say Wii resolution but we also handle resolutions in between like 1024 across; 800 across; and then all the way down to 600. If it's below that, we are going to say you don't have a fast enough connection. For the standard definition resolution, we're talking 1.2 megabits a second. Well, at 1.2 megabits a second, if you were running 24 hours a day, 30 days a month, you would not consume 250 gigabytes. So, for, I don't know -- if you are a person who never needs to sleep, never needs to eat, do anything else other than play high performance games and you need to run 24 hours a day for 30 days a month and you had a 250 gigabyte cap, then what you need to do is run it in standard definition. So, long story short, I think the bandwidth caps are not a major issue for OnLive."

[Link]

[QUOTE="ShadowriverUB"]

People see only cons of this technoly... but it has pros to return:

-No pay for hardware

-Easy live streaming

-Recording any moment of the game you want

-Fast start game up

It's very social solution

Zephernix from youtube review it and you can see it in action

Hakkai007

A PC could do all of those.

The subscription eventually costs more than a PC in the long run.

My 3 year old PC (650USD) still plays just about any game at max settings at 1680x1050 res.

The computer is 3 years old, it will still do fine for another year.

So after 4 years the subscription for Onlive adds up to 720 USD.....more than my Computer.

[QUOTE="SquatsAreAwesom"][QUOTE="subrosian"]If you care about gaming or property rights, you shouldn't support OnLIVE, end of story. It shouldn't even be allowed to be posted on System Wars as anything more than "a failed plan to subvert property rights, lie to people and scam general audiences". Maybe a guy stands on the street corner waving a little flag "nothing to see here folks, just an investor scam that you don't want to get involved in". I don't understand why a company that SOLELY exists to rip off its investors, and only created a product to avoid jail time for fraud, would be supported by ANYONE.Modern_Unit

PC =/= OnLive

@SakusEnvoy

I don't think you understand how evil ISP's are these days on bandwidth usage. As stated in this thread, when you start using alot of bandwidth for long stretches, many ISP's drop a nasty bandwidth limit on you. Example, I am on Cox in louisiana right now. I am on a 8mb connection. If I go to watch 4-5 hrs of 1080p videos then for the next 2-3 days my connection drops to that of a 1-3mb connection. Most ISP's do this. Most times you don't notice it until you go to stream a big flash video or download a big file and notice your once 1-2mb a sec download is now sitting at 250-500kb a sec. This is a big grey area and onlive would have a major issue with this.

@SquatsAreawesome

Onlive is a bit different then hulu in the fact you are in essence making a pvp connection to onlive since you are sending back information to them for it to be interpreted (control movements). I would highly expect bandwidth usage to be far greater then that of watching a flash video on hulu. This is also much different as Hulu is in essence just sending you a file for you to download. Thats how flash videos work. You get sent a .flv file inside a .swf player. You can watch parts of it as it is downloading into your temp files. This is again WAY different to Onlives gaming service.

[QUOTE="subrosian"]If you care about gaming or property rights, you shouldn't support OnLIVE, end of story. It shouldn't even be allowed to be posted on System Wars as anything more than "a failed plan to subvert property rights, lie to people and scam general audiences". Maybe a guy stands on the street corner waving a little flag "nothing to see here folks, just an investor scam that you don't want to get involved in". I don't understand why a company that SOLELY exists to rip off its investors, and only created a product to avoid jail time for fraud, would be supported by ANYONE.SquatsAreAwesom

That has NOTHING to do with anything I said:

1. OnLIVE is a scam intended to fleece investors.

2. OnLIVE is a scam intended to take property rights away from gamers.

3. OnLIVE should not be supported by anyone who cares about gaming.

DO NOT BRING UP STEAM it is irrelevant to this conversation. Valve isn't scamming it's investors. This is WebTV all over again, this man, and his companies, are simply fronts for stealing money from investment groups, individuals, and other corporations. In ten years, OnLIVE won't be around, but in the meantime, its "founder" will have enjoyed a lucrative salary at the industry's expense.

[QUOTE="SquatsAreAwesom"][QUOTE="subrosian"]If you care about gaming or property rights, you shouldn't support OnLIVE, end of story. It shouldn't even be allowed to be posted on System Wars as anything more than "a failed plan to subvert property rights, lie to people and scam general audiences". Maybe a guy stands on the street corner waving a little flag "nothing to see here folks, just an investor scam that you don't want to get involved in". I don't understand why a company that SOLELY exists to rip off its investors, and only created a product to avoid jail time for fraud, would be supported by ANYONE.subrosian

That has NOTHING to do with anything I said:

1. OnLIVE is a scam intended to fleece investors.

2. OnLIVE is a scam intended to take property rights away from gamers.

3. OnLIVE should not be supported by anyone who cares about gaming.

DO NOT BRING UP STEAM it is irrelevant to this conversation. Valve isn't scamming it's investors. This is WebTV all over again, this man, and his companies, are simply fronts for stealing money from investment groups, individuals, and other corporations. In ten years, OnLIVE won't be around, but in the meantime, its "founder" will have enjoyed a lucrative salary at the industry's expense.

Please take off the tinfoil hat before we continue dialogue.SquatsAreAwesom

@SakusEnvoy

I don't think you understand how evil ISP's are these days on bandwidth usage. As stated in this thread, when you start using alot of bandwidth for long stretches, many ISP's drop a nasty bandwidth limit on you. Example, I am on Cox in louisiana right now. I am on a 8mb connection. If I go to watch 4-5 hrs of 1080p videos then for the next 2-3 days my connection drops to that of a 1-3mb connection. Most ISP's do this. Most times you don't notice it until you go to stream a big flash video or download a big file and notice your once 1-2mb a sec download is now sitting at 250-500kb a sec. This is a big grey area and onlive would have a major issue with this.

@SquatsAreawesome

Onlive is a bit different then hulu in the fact you are in essence making a pvp connection to onlive since you are sending back information to them for it to be interpreted (control movements). I would highly expect bandwidth usage to be far greater then that of watching a flash video on hulu.

jedikevin2

Two things which I do like: it provides PC game rentals - which I think is kindof interesting, because that market really doesn't exist right now. And also, I like the idea of simpler, easier game demos that I can just jump into. I also think Cloud computing has a great future, when we look at how much broadband penetration has increased over the last 10 years.

How can i join?Solid_Tango

[QUOTE="SquatsAreAwesom"][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?

zyrumtumtuggerd

It looks to be running well. I don't have fast enough internet connection (i can barely stream HD videos) at home, but at school i might be able to use it. So, do you pay $15 a month then pay extra for the games? Are the games cheaper?

It looks to be running well. I don't have fast enough internet connection (i can barely stream HD videos) at home, but at school i might be able to use it. So, do you pay $15 a month then pay extra for the games? Are the games cheaper?

hoola

No. You pay the same price you would at retail if you want to have the game longer than 5 days. Actually, you still don't own the game, you simply "have access to the game" for as long as OnLIVE actively supports it. That means not only will you not have the game forever (OnLIVE claims 3 years, but that period is not defined in your service agreement with them, i.e. they can yank the game at any time) BUT you will also cease to have access to the game if you stop paying the $15/month at any point.

That $15/month is also subject to change. Lovely.

The prices in the marketplace are currently all higher than STEAM or Amazon. Again, it's a scam, DO NOT BUY INTO IT, you will get ripped off.

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

Considering I have no need for portability when playing games like that (ie netbook) my 5870 lets me max any game at any resolution with any mod I choose. So far Onlive has not impressed me what so ever. Also my netbook which I almost never use for games can run Half Life 2, and games like COD4 with its Nvidia Ion GPU.

Haters gonna hate. I would love to get rid of my gaming PC... and replace it with a nice laptop. Less noise, less power, more portable. Hell ya.SquatsAreAwesom

Just tried it out. Fairly impressive considering it's streamed, but you're gonna need at least a 5mb connection for it to work at an acceptable clip.

Very bummed that there's no Crysis or Mass Effect 2. I tried out AC2, UT3, and Dirt 2. To be honest, shooters probably aren't gonna work on this type of system. It's better suited for games like ME2 or AC2. Thing is, you can buy a 360 for $150 that puts out better gfx and has better support.

I think cloud computing is extremely cool, but at this time I don't see the point. A $40 gfx card and Steam/D2D deals is a much safer and stable way to go. Later I'm gonna try OnLive on my sister-in-law's MacBook. Anyway, here's some screens I took...

Let me get this straight if I fail to pay the monthly fee or OnLive fails, I lose all the games that I bought BLEH NO TY.:P

roulettethedog

I'll keep my PC, thanks.

[QUOTE="SquatsAreAwesom"][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?

zyrumtumtuggerd

um im pretty sure a netbook dosn't use as much power as a gaming PC does, im sorry but where is your textbook chapter that ays becasue they are streaming internetz you use more power, if that were true his netbook would melt. Either way I would rahter prefer owning my own PC since everything i install on it I own, i don't have to worry about paying a monthly subscription jsut to play games, even if the first year of gaming is free, all the years after that, if you cant pay the fee then what you can't play your games. Also no mods, how do you do multiplayer, can you play with other onlive users is there cross platform multiplayer. I think the games they ofer right now you can just get on steam for very cheap or you'd be better off getting a console.

Just tried it out. Fairly impressive considering it's streamed, but you're gonna need at least a 5mb connection for it to work at an acceptable clip.

Very bummed that there's no Crysis or Mass Effect 2. I tried out AC2, UT3, and Dirt 2. To be honest, shooters probably aren't gonna work on this type of system. It's better suited for games like ME2 or AC2. Thing is, you can buy a 360 for $150 that puts out better gfx and has better support.

I think cloud computing is extremely cool, but at this time I don't see the point. A $40 gfx card and Steam/D2D deals is a much safer and stable way to go. Later I'm gonna try OnLive on my sister-in-law's MacBook. Anyway, here's some screens I took...

gamecubepad

those resolution look worse than n xbox 360. Youd really be etter off with a cnsole my freind if you can't afford a gaming PC.