OnLive! Just go away, the big 3 want nothing of you

How annoying. Just say things plainly. First, stop saying video games. You aren't going to be distributing video games. You are distributing PC games. Sony, Microsoft, and Ninetendo aren't going to let you anywhere near their console propriety games. Second, stop double talking about price. We know you want to charge at least the same price for PC games as the consoles charge for theirs. The price point for PC games ain't 60 bucks. It is 39 or 49. But we hear you. You want to charge 60 and actually more because you want to pass any savings to your pocket from distribution costs. Third, you aren't going to E3 because you are selling PC games and not video games and E3 is all about console gaming and just a little bit about PC games and none of it really has much to do about digital downloads. E3 is about the big three and their third party developers.

So yes you are right you are irrelevant in regards to console gaming and E3.

OnLive! you suck. You make me sick. You blog is so arrogant. You just plan on charging a lot for very little. I am certain that publishers and developers are not lining up behind you. Rather, the think you are full of it.

Just finish scooping up your venture capital. Spend every penney. Line your pockets and go away.

You will fail just like the Phantom and you know it.

You know some people in this world just wants to break into a business right? It's not like they are committing a crime for trying, don't detest them right off the bat. I think OnLive isn't going to work out as smoothly as they're expecting to though, for one they don't have an exclusive lineup to show that they're really trying to make a stand.

Ok... Well, I welcome OnLive and hope it is a success.

We have to accept that the idea is pretty awesome, just the fact to be able to play Crysis in a medium PC is great, then again, the price seems to be a problem and i have to say that i prefer having my games in my house than playing them in a server, it sure looks great for PC gamers, but not for me.

I hope OnLive works out, but if streaming games means a lower quality experience, i won't be partaking in it.HoldThePhone

if i works how would that be a bad thing ???!?! I'd enjoy another option

LOL, I am not jumping up and down screaming. There are no caps. I was just being challenging to the blog. Read it again calmly. Anyway, I just think they are basically trying to say that they don't have any console games lined up, we should lower our expectations of them and expect high prices. This means that OnLive! will suck. Steam and gog.com, and the rest are were we are headed.

Do you really think that the 60 price point should be higher for video and PC games or do you think it is high enough?

Do you want to pay more per game like they are saying? Makes no sense. You should just buy your own high end system and pay less for games.

They are pricing themselves right out of business. The blog is about lowering expectations and expecting higher prices.

A really stupid way to sell a new system. I was excited too. But now. No so much. Epic Failure. On Live go away.

Wow, way to support a new and innovative business...

First of all, I dont think OnLive is going to do anything LIKE challenge the consoles (at leat, at first) and secondly, if it works as they say, and doesnt lower the gameplay experience or hinder it AT ALL then I'm all for it. Who doesnt want to be able to play Crysis on their cheap laptop?

I thought PC games fall under the "video games" category:lol:

Don't be a commie, embrace competition and variety.

Resistant to change much? :P

LOL, I am not jumping up and down screaming. There are no caps. I was just being challenging to the blog. Read it again calmly. Anyway, I just think they are basically trying to say that they don't have any console games lined up, we should lower our expectations of them and expect high prices. This means that OnLive! will suck. Steam and gog.com, and the rest are were we are headed.

Do you really think that the 60 price point should be higher for video and PC games or do you think it is high enough?

Do you want to pay more per game like they are saying? Makes no sense. You should just buy your own high end system and pay less for games.

They are pricing themselves right out of business. The blog is about lowering expectations and expecting higher prices.

A really stupid way to sell a new system. I was excited too. But now. No so much. Epic Failure. On Live go away.

steveroger

You do know there are people out there (a whole boat load of them) which cant/wont afford a gaming pc.

---

For one I think its an absolute waste of money (to me), I would much rather spend the money I earn on a good night out, and as it stands between uni, work, friends, gf and sports I dont have time to play half of the games out there. Gaming boards aside this is completely normal, the majority of people dont give themselves over to just one habit completely, other aspects of their lives will take up to much of their time.

---

As a result something like Onlive is amazing for me. I set it up by my tv and play the specific high quality games that I want which I cant afford to play otherwise. I dont really mind that the visual fidelity is comprimised because I just want to "play" the game. Not oggle at bloody TOD pictures.

---

Finally, even if you ignore everything I just said, your essentially saying with your posts that you dont want innovation, you want stagnation. I dont know if Onlive will work, odds are it wont. But hoping for the death of an up and rising technology, assuming you have no personal financial stake in the matter seems very close minded.

---

btw, their blog makes them seem down to earth, they arent promising you 50 virgins, bottle of vodka, and king sized bed, they are trying something new and are not creating a ridiculous level of hype like Sony did with their PS3.

How annoying. Just say things plainly. First, stop saying video games. You aren't going to be distributing video games. You are distributing PC games. Sony, Microsoft, and Ninetendo aren't going to let you anywhere near their console propriety games. Second, stop double talking about price. We know you want to charge at least the same price for PC games as the consoles charge for theirs. The price point for PC games ain't 60 bucks. It is 39 or 49. But we hear you. You want to charge 60 and actually more because you want to pass any savings to your pocket from distribution costs. Third, you aren't going to E3 because you are selling PC games and not video games and E3 is all about console gaming and just a little bit about PC games and none of it really has much to do about digital downloads. E3 is about the big three and their third party developers.

So yes you are right you are irrelevant in regards to console gaming and E3.

OnLive! you suck. You make me sick. You blog is so arrogant. You just plan on charging a lot for very little. I am certain that publishers and developers are not lining up behind you. Rather, the think you are full of it.

Just finish scooping up your venture capital. Spend every penney. Line your pockets and go away.

You will fail just like the Phantom and you know it.

steveroger

I don't think you understand what Onlive actually is.. It's not a digital distribution as you are currently used to it, it has nothing to do with Steam or such or their way of doing things. Steam is digital distribution. You buy a game, download it and play it on your PC. It's up to you to know if your PC can run it and to know how well it will run it. Onlive, on the other hand, distributes a stream of a game you are playing on their servers. For example, you buy Cryisis which needs hell of a PC to run fluently and you run it on their servers. It's running perfectly since their server farms are top notch and you get a video stream of it on your $200 PC and it looks like you are playing Crysis in 60fps on such a PC. That's the kind of service Onlive offers. I consider it revolutionary. That way of doing things is already spreading in IT sector, server farms which run apps and all you need is a terminal to see a stream from it, but using it for gaming is truly revolutionary. I also see tons of problems associated with it (potential lag, upgrade problems, etc), but still, it's an amazing feat if they pull it off.

If this works i will for sure try this out, looks nice :D

I hope it works out, but I don't see myself buying one of those.

[QUOTE="steveroger"]

How annoying. Just say things plainly. First, stop saying video games. You aren't going to be distributing video games. You are distributing PC games. Sony, Microsoft, and Ninetendo aren't going to let you anywhere near their console propriety games. Second, stop double talking about price. We know you want to charge at least the same price for PC games as the consoles charge for theirs. The price point for PC games ain't 60 bucks. It is 39 or 49. But we hear you. You want to charge 60 and actually more because you want to pass any savings to your pocket from distribution costs. Third, you aren't going to E3 because you are selling PC games and not video games and E3 is all about console gaming and just a little bit about PC games and none of it really has much to do about digital downloads. E3 is about the big three and their third party developers.

So yes you are right you are irrelevant in regards to console gaming and E3.

OnLive! you suck. You make me sick. You blog is so arrogant. You just plan on charging a lot for very little. I am certain that publishers and developers are not lining up behind you. Rather, the think you are full of it.

Just finish scooping up your venture capital. Spend every penney. Line your pockets and go away.

You will fail just like the Phantom and you know it.

Chofee

I don't think you understand what Onlive actually is.. It's not a digital distribution as you are currently used to it, it has nothing to do with Steam or such or their way of doing things. Steam is digital distribution. You buy a game, download it and play it on your PC. It's up to you to know if your PC can run it and to know how well it will run it. Onlive, on the other hand, distributes a stream of a game you are playing on their servers. For example, you buy Cryisis which needs hell of a PC to run fluently and you run it on their servers. It's running perfectly since their server farms are top notch and you get a video stream of it on your $200 PC and it looks like you are playing Crysis in 60fps on such a PC. That's the kind of service Onlive offers. I consider it revolutionary. That way of doing things is already spreading in IT sector, server farms which run apps and all you need is a terminal to see a stream from it, but using it for gaming is truly revolutionary. I also see tons of problems associated with it (potential lag, upgrade problems, etc), but still, it's an amazing feat if they pull it off.

You are the one who missed the point. I said in my posts that "Steam and gog.com and the rest is where we are headed." This means that PC gamers are not buying into the cloud computing rap of OnLive! but rather we are sticking with the future of PC gaming which is digital downloading for our own PCs.

I say this because OnLive! in their blog is setting us up for high prices. As I pointed out the current price point for PC games is not $60 for new releases. The $60 price point is for video games for consoles. OnLive! is full of it. Anyway, OnLive is really only competing with PC games. For the most part new PC games are hitting $40 and $50. OnLive! is totally misleading readers about pricing and the cost of games. The market for PC games is not bestbuy and walmart. But Steam and gog.com, and direct2drive and gamersgate.com. They already cut the cost of distribution and packaging.

So, my point is, that OnLive! in their blog is skipping E3 because they say they aren't about retailing for video games and retail distribution. Yes, that is true, so they better deal with the cost of games on Steam and gog.com.

Lastly, they have to pass the cost of their cloud servers onto customers. This means there is no savings to the end user to use the OnLive! service. Wake up people.

This is all a way to get into your pocket. In the long run you will not save a thing. Because they are setting you up to pay big time per game.

Sure, if you can't afford to shell out the big dollars for a PC then cloud computing is for you. Just like paying $10 bucks per video game rental at blockbuster is for you too.

Get it?

I prefer to buy my own PC and upgrade it than carry the cost of their lag infested cloud computing service. Mark my words. You will be paying and paying for very very little choice and performance.

The distributors and developers are going to want to pay for cloud computing either. But they don't care if you buy their games at a high price though go ahead. Pay and Pay.

You are the one who missed the point. I said in my posts that "Steam and gog.com and the rest is where we are headed." This means that PC gamers are not buying into the cloud computing rap of OnLive! but rather we are sticking with the future of PC gaming which is digital downloading for our own PCs.

I say this because OnLive! in their blog is setting us up for high prices. As I pointed out the current price point for PC games is not $60 for new releases. The $60 price point is for video games for consoles. OnLive! is full of it. Anyway, OnLive is really only competing with PC games. For the most part new PC games are hitting $40 and $50. OnLive! is totally misleading readers about pricing and the cost of games. The market for PC games is not bestbuy and walmart. But Steam and gog.com, and direct2drive and gamersgate.com. They already cut the cost of distribution and packaging.

So, my point is, that OnLive! in their blog is skipping E3 because they say they aren't about retailing for video games and retail distribution. Yes, that is true, so they better deal with the cost of games on Steam and gog.com.

Lastly, they have to pass the cost of their cloud servers onto customers. This means there is no savings to the end user to use the OnLive! service. Wake up people.

This is all a way to get into your pocket. In the long run you will not save a thing. Because they are setting you up to pay big time per game.

Sure, if you can't afford to shell out the big dollars for a PC then cloud computing is for you. Just like paying $10 bucks per video game rental at blockbuster is for you too.

Get it?

I prefer to buy my own PC and upgrade it than carry the cost of their lag infested cloud computing service. Mark my words. You will be paying and paying for very very little choice and performance.

The distributors and developers are going to want to pay for cloud computing either. But they don't care if you buy their games at a high price though go ahead. Pay and Pay.

steveroger

Dude, OnLive isn't out yet.

Wait for it to gets released, flops, and then bash on it.

[QUOTE="steveroger"]

LOL, I am not jumping up and down screaming. There are no caps. I was just being challenging to the blog. Read it again calmly. Anyway, I just think they are basically trying to say that they don't have any console games lined up, we should lower our expectations of them and expect high prices. This means that OnLive! will suck. Steam and gog.com, and the rest are were we are headed.

Do you really think that the 60 price point should be higher for video and PC games or do you think it is high enough?

Do you want to pay more per game like they are saying? Makes no sense. You should just buy your own high end system and pay less for games.

They are pricing themselves right out of business. The blog is about lowering expectations and expecting higher prices.

A really stupid way to sell a new system. I was excited too. But now. No so much. Epic Failure. On Live go away.

alextherussian

You do know there are people out there (a whole boat load of them) which cant/wont afford a gaming pc.

---

For one I think its an absolute waste of money (to me), I would much rather spend the money I earn on a good night out, and as it stands between uni, work, friends, gf and sports I dont have time to play half of the games out there. Gaming boards aside this is completely normal, the majority of people dont give themselves over to just one habit completely, other aspects of their lives will take up to much of their time.

---

As a result something like Onlive is amazing for me. I set it up by my tv and play the specific high quality games that I want which I cant afford to play otherwise. I dont really mind that the visual fidelity is comprimised because I just want to "play" the game. Not oggle at bloody TOD pictures.

---

Finally, even if you ignore everything I just said, your essentially saying with your posts that you dont want innovation, you want stagnation. I dont know if Onlive will work, odds are it wont. But hoping for the death of an up and rising technology, assuming you have no personal financial stake in the matter seems very close minded.

---

btw, their blog makes them seem down to earth, they arent promising you 50 virgins, bottle of vodka, and king sized bed, they are trying something new and are not creating a ridiculous level of hype like Sony did with their PS3.

LOL, when you see the price to pay for a few hours of crysis you will be begging to have Sony sell you PS3. You console gamers are dreaming that you are going to get some super device that actually lets you play games at a lower cost.

Not going to happen. You are going to pay exactly the same and more. That is how business works. Not only that. The PC platform is the largest most popular platform in the world. It is not going anywhere. Prices will continue to drop and the cost of high end systems are now reaching console levels thanks to Sony and Microsoft. For $300 to $500 you have a great PC that will play Crysis at much better than Crysis at 720p at 30fps. In fact, 30fps sucks. You guys just don't have a clue.

I would rather have my own PC and my own consoles and reasonably priced games that don't go up in costs.

And OnLive! is so full of it saying that the cost of games has not gone up. What planet is he on? Did you notice that the price of games went up along with the next generation of consoles. That includes PC games too. They went up from 29.99 to 39.99 and 49.99. This guy is lying his arse off.

Spin to win as they say. Keep dreaming you guys. Keep your head and wallet in the clouds if you like. I will keep mine in my pocket and on the ground.

[QUOTE="steveroger"]

You are the one who missed the point. I said in my posts that "Steam and gog.com and the rest is where we are headed." This means that PC gamers are not buying into the cloud computing rap of OnLive! but rather we are sticking with the future of PC gaming which is digital downloading for our own PCs.

I say this because OnLive! in their blog is setting us up for high prices. As I pointed out the current price point for PC games is not $60 for new releases. The $60 price point is for video games for consoles. OnLive! is full of it. Anyway, OnLive is really only competing with PC games. For the most part new PC games are hitting $40 and $50. OnLive! is totally misleading readers about pricing and the cost of games. The market for PC games is not bestbuy and walmart. But Steam and gog.com, and direct2drive and gamersgate.com. They already cut the cost of distribution and packaging.

So, my point is, that OnLive! in their blog is skipping E3 because they say they aren't about retailing for video games and retail distribution. Yes, that is true, so they better deal with the cost of games on Steam and gog.com.

Lastly, they have to pass the cost of their cloud servers onto customers. This means there is no savings to the end user to use the OnLive! service. Wake up people.

This is all a way to get into your pocket. In the long run you will not save a thing. Because they are setting you up to pay big time per game.

Sure, if you can't afford to shell out the big dollars for a PC then cloud computing is for you. Just like paying $10 bucks per video game rental at blockbuster is for you too.

Get it?

I prefer to buy my own PC and upgrade it than carry the cost of their lag infested cloud computing service. Mark my words. You will be paying and paying for very very little choice and performance.

The distributors and developers are going to want to pay for cloud computing either. But they don't care if you buy their games at a high price though go ahead. Pay and Pay.

IgGy621985

Dude, OnLive isn't out yet.

Wait for it to gets released, flops, and then bash on it.

This thread is systems wars. If you can't take the challenge get outta my thread. This is a thrown down. Why all the questioning about questioning? You make no sense. Have some fun, live a little. Make an argument, take a position. Argue a point. Put down a console. Brag about a PC. Bash a market. Say something.

OnLive just looks like a bloated version of Gametap. It'll probably be expensive, laggy, and severely lacking support from developers.

[QUOTE="alextherussian"]

[QUOTE="steveroger"]

LOL, I am not jumping up and down screaming. There are no caps. I was just being challenging to the blog. Read it again calmly. Anyway, I just think they are basically trying to say that they don't have any console games lined up, we should lower our expectations of them and expect high prices. This means that OnLive! will suck. Steam and gog.com, and the rest are were we are headed.

Do you really think that the 60 price point should be higher for video and PC games or do you think it is high enough?

Do you want to pay more per game like they are saying? Makes no sense. You should just buy your own high end system and pay less for games.

They are pricing themselves right out of business. The blog is about lowering expectations and expecting higher prices.

A really stupid way to sell a new system. I was excited too. But now. No so much. Epic Failure. On Live go away.

steveroger

You do know there are people out there (a whole boat load of them) which cant/wont afford a gaming pc.

---

For one I think its an absolute waste of money (to me), I would much rather spend the money I earn on a good night out, and as it stands between uni, work, friends, gf and sports I dont have time to play half of the games out there. Gaming boards aside this is completely normal, the majority of people dont give themselves over to just one habit completely, other aspects of their lives will take up to much of their time.

---

As a result something like Onlive is amazing for me. I set it up by my tv and play the specific high quality games that I want which I cant afford to play otherwise. I dont really mind that the visual fidelity is comprimised because I just want to "play" the game. Not oggle at bloody TOD pictures.

---

Finally, even if you ignore everything I just said, your essentially saying with your posts that you dont want innovation, you want stagnation. I dont know if Onlive will work, odds are it wont. But hoping for the death of an up and rising technology, assuming you have no personal financial stake in the matter seems very close minded.

---

btw, their blog makes them seem down to earth, they arent promising you 50 virgins, bottle of vodka, and king sized bed, they are trying something new and are not creating a ridiculous level of hype like Sony did with their PS3.

LOL, when you see the price to pay for a few hours of crysis you will be begging to have Sony sell you PS3. You console gamers are dreaming that you are going to get some super device that actually lets you play games at a lower cost.

Not going to happen. You are going to pay exactly the same and more. That is how business works. Not only that. The PC platform is the largest most popular platform in the world. It is not going anywhere. Prices will continue to drop and the cost of high end systems are now reaching console levels thanks to Sony and Microsoft. For $300 to $500 you have a great PC that will play Crysis at much better than Crysis at 720p at 30fps. In fact, 30fps sucks. You guys just don't have a clue.

I would rather have my own PC and my own consoles and reasonably priced games that don't go up in costs.

And OnLive! is so full of it saying that the cost of games has not gone up. What planet is he on? Did you notice that the price of games went up along with the next generation of consoles. That includes PC games too. They went up from 29.99 to 39.99 and 49.99. This guy is lying his arse off.

Spin to win as they say. Keep dreaming you guys. Keep your head and wallet in the clouds if you like. I will keep mine in my pocket and on the ground.

Feel free to list components of a $300 - $500 comp that could run Crysis nicely..

As I said in my first post a vast amount of people will not have the money to buy a gaming pc or the know how to put one together.

The irony of the "cheap PC" is that the people that know how to make one, will not, becuase they will be willing to shell out more for a more advanced PC. The ones that may need/want these cheap PC's will, often not have the know how of acquring/making one.

--

Fact of the matter is, Onlive is a step, in making PC gaming cheaper. Whether or not it works, you cant really be unhappy about that. If you already have a Gaming PC you dont need it, but can at least be happy that (possibly) more people get a chance to play some amazing pc games like Crysis, or the Witcher (better start working on that console version again sometime soon)...

Feel free to list components of a $300 - $500 comp that could run Crysis nicely..

This. Especially at a good rez and higher then 30 FPS. I can get 40+ fps AVG, no AA very high at like 1650x1080 on my GTX 280. The card itself is(was) close to $300.....

It would help to know what this post was in response to. Personally I didn't expect it to be cheap, but it could still work out for people who only want to play few high-end PC games here and there. And aside from avoiding building your own rig it could also bring other benefits for people more used to console gaming like standard gamepad controls, integrated community features, no need for patching/upgrading drivers etc.

It might not get the console exclusives, but if they manage to lure the proper publishers in the PC library has plenty to offer for everyone, hell if it actually works out it could potentially even encourage publishers to release more games for Onlive/PC usually considered console only, like jRPGs and fighters.

Still I think it's obvious that if you want to get into PC gaming 100% you're still better off building your own rig for the customizability, higher resolutions, cheaper games(?) and all the other little perks that come with actually owning your machine.

I'm sure it will have issues, possibly even fail utterly, but I don't see why I should be hoping for that.

How annoying. Just say things plainly. First, stop saying video games. You aren't going to be distributing video games. You are distributing PC games. Sony, Microsoft, and Ninetendo aren't going to let you anywhere near their console propriety games. Second, stop double talking about price. We know you want to charge at least the same price for PC games as the consoles charge for theirs. The price point for PC games ain't 60 bucks. It is 39 or 49. But we hear you. You want to charge 60 and actually more because you want to pass any savings to your pocket from distribution costs. Third, you aren't going to E3 because you are selling PC games and not video games and E3 is all about console gaming and just a little bit about PC games and none of it really has much to do about digital downloads. E3 is about the big three and their third party developers.

So yes you are right you are irrelevant in regards to console gaming and E3.

OnLive! you suck. You make me sick. You blog is so arrogant. You just plan on charging a lot for very little. I am certain that publishers and developers are not lining up behind you. Rather, the think you are full of it.

Just finish scooping up your venture capital. Spend every penney. Line your pockets and go away.

You will fail just like the Phantom and you know it.

[QUOTE="IgGy621985"]

[QUOTE="steveroger"]

You are the one who missed the point. I said in my posts that "Steam and gog.com and the rest is where we are headed." This means that PC gamers are not buying into the cloud computing rap of OnLive! but rather we are sticking with the future of PC gaming which is digital downloading for our own PCs.

I say this because OnLive! in their blog is setting us up for high prices. As I pointed out the current price point for PC games is not $60 for new releases. The $60 price point is for video games for consoles. OnLive! is full of it. Anyway, OnLive is really only competing with PC games. For the most part new PC games are hitting $40 and $50. OnLive! is totally misleading readers about pricing and the cost of games. The market for PC games is not bestbuy and walmart. But Steam and gog.com, and direct2drive and gamersgate.com. They already cut the cost of distribution and packaging.

So, my point is, that OnLive! in their blog is skipping E3 because they say they aren't about retailing for video games and retail distribution. Yes, that is true, so they better deal with the cost of games on Steam and gog.com.

Lastly, they have to pass the cost of their cloud servers onto customers. This means there is no savings to the end user to use the OnLive! service. Wake up people.

This is all a way to get into your pocket. In the long run you will not save a thing. Because they are setting you up to pay big time per game.

Sure, if you can't afford to shell out the big dollars for a PC then cloud computing is for you. Just like paying $10 bucks per video game rental at blockbuster is for you too.

Get it?

I prefer to buy my own PC and upgrade it than carry the cost of their lag infested cloud computing service. Mark my words. You will be paying and paying for very very little choice and performance.

The distributors and developers are going to want to pay for cloud computing either. But they don't care if you buy their games at a high price though go ahead. Pay and Pay.

steveroger

Dude, OnLive isn't out yet.

Wait for it to gets released, flops, and then bash on it.

My thoughts exactly. They will dissapear with investors money, and thats about all imo.

free market works that way, if someone has a good idea then they try it out, if it doesn't work then it doesn't work, no sense trying to demonize a great idea and a lot of hard work. And by the way, the big 3 includes microsoft, which includes windows, many pc games are always shown at e3

[QUOTE="steveroger"]

LOL, I am not jumping up and down screaming. There are no caps. I was just being challenging to the blog. Read it again calmly. Anyway, I just think they are basically trying to say that they don't have any console games lined up, we should lower our expectations of them and expect high prices. This means that OnLive! will suck. Steam and gog.com, and the rest are were we are headed.

Do you really think that the 60 price point should be higher for video and PC games or do you think it is high enough?

Do you want to pay more per game like they are saying? Makes no sense. You should just buy your own high end system and pay less for games.

They are pricing themselves right out of business. The blog is about lowering expectations and expecting higher prices.

A really stupid way to sell a new system. I was excited too. But now. No so much. Epic Failure. On Live go away.

alextherussian

You do know there are people out there (a whole boat load of them) which cant/wont afford a gaming pc.

---

For one I think its an absolute waste of money (to me), I would much rather spend the money I earn on a good night out, and as it stands between uni, work, friends, gf and sports I dont have time to play half of the games out there. Gaming boards aside this is completely normal, the majority of people dont give themselves over to just one habit completely, other aspects of their lives will take up to much of their time.

---

As a result something like Onlive is amazing for me. I set it up by my tv and play the specific high quality games that I want which I cant afford to play otherwise. I dont really mind that the visual fidelity is comprimised because I just want to "play" the game. Not oggle at bloody TOD pictures.

---

Finally, even if you ignore everything I just said, your essentially saying with your posts that you dont want innovation, you want stagnation. I dont know if Onlive will work, odds are it wont. But hoping for the death of an up and rising technology, assuming you have no personal financial stake in the matter seems very close minded.

---

btw, their blog makes them seem down to earth, they arent promising you 50 virgins, bottle of vodka, and king sized bed, they are trying something new and are not creating a ridiculous level of hype like Sony did with their PS3.

And then there are those that can waste there money on $1500 computer and have 360 and ps3 allwith a2 week pay chek and still go out on the town nexed pay day

and have 30,000 in the bankLike me .........so you faile at life

[QUOTE="steveroger"]

[QUOTE="alextherussian"]

You do know there are people out there (a whole boat load of them) which cant/wont afford a gaming pc.

---

For one I think its an absolute waste of money (to me), I would much rather spend the money I earn on a good night out, and as it stands between uni, work, friends, gf and sports I dont have time to play half of the games out there. Gaming boards aside this is completely normal, the majority of people dont give themselves over to just one habit completely, other aspects of their lives will take up to much of their time.

---

As a result something like Onlive is amazing for me. I set it up by my tv and play the specific high quality games that I want which I cant afford to play otherwise. I dont really mind that the visual fidelity is comprimised because I just want to "play" the game. Not oggle at bloody TOD pictures.

---

Finally, even if you ignore everything I just said, your essentially saying with your posts that you dont want innovation, you want stagnation. I dont know if Onlive will work, odds are it wont. But hoping for the death of an up and rising technology, assuming you have no personal financial stake in the matter seems very close minded.

---

btw, their blog makes them seem down to earth, they arent promising you 50 virgins, bottle of vodka, and king sized bed, they are trying something new and are not creating a ridiculous level of hype like Sony did with their PS3.

Chofee

LOL, when you see the price to pay for a few hours of crysis you will be begging to have Sony sell you PS3. You console gamers are dreaming that you are going to get some super device that actually lets you play games at a lower cost.

Not going to happen. You are going to pay exactly the same and more. That is how business works. Not only that. The PC platform is the largest most popular platform in the world. It is not going anywhere. Prices will continue to drop and the cost of high end systems are now reaching console levels thanks to Sony and Microsoft. For $300 to $500 you have a great PC that will play Crysis at much better than Crysis at 720p at 30fps. In fact, 30fps sucks. You guys just don't have a clue.

I would rather have my own PC and my own consoles and reasonably priced games that don't go up in costs.

And OnLive! is so full of it saying that the cost of games has not gone up. What planet is he on? Did you notice that the price of games went up along with the next generation of consoles. That includes PC games too. They went up from 29.99 to 39.99 and 49.99. This guy is lying his arse off.

Spin to win as they say. Keep dreaming you guys. Keep your head and wallet in the clouds if you like. I will keep mine in my pocket and on the ground.

Feel free to list components of a $300 - $500 comp that could run Crysis nicely..

Here is one artilcle I looked at:

If you have any existing components, like a case or hard drive you can use you can drop the price:

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/build_a_500_pc_play_crysis_40fps?page=0%2C0

And for even less:

http://www.pctoolguide.com/cpu-motherboard/build-a-dx10-rig-for-under-300/

You will fail just like the Phantom and you know it.

steveroger

As much as I think it's a great idea, there's no way it will work in this day and age. Streaming technology is just nowhere near high enough quality for something like this to work in anything but blurry standard definition.

I think you have the term Video game wrong. "Hey take a look at this video I found." What is the meaning of the word video in that sentance? :P

Calm down man, Eventually what they are trying to do is probably going to be how games are delivered to us. VideoGameGuy

i hate it when people talk about DDL i know it's good for DLC and small company with a small bugets but that's it plus some games can't be played on top end pc's but can be on consoles because the fact is bluray is going to be the new way to get us games

I admire OnLive's ambition to break into the videogame industry, and making PC games more accessible for consolites.

But OnLive is dealing with a severe technological barrier : internet bandwidth. Most worldwide internet services do not offer the bandwidth required to stream games in HD with little to no buffering.

They assume the internet will be ready for them by the end of this year, and though net speed has been constantly evolving, daily and constantly, towards higher speeds, it will never reach the speed required of OnLive to fully buffer at least 720p without a painful launch phase and many troublesome connections due to unprepared households.

Guess we'll see how things turn out.