Problem with OnLive is it's low resolution and pwnage by high end gaming rigs...

Could I play Dirt 2 in DX 11 + tessellation in Full HD 1080P like in my gaming rig? No.

It's limited to 720P resolution (same as many console games) and limited graphical settings in the games themselves. Also, you are limited to a certain number of days you can play a certain game. I personally prefer to own the games through Steam for example, so I could play the games whenever I want, all the time, any time. When you rent a game for a certain amount time you are kind of under pressure to finish the game on time. Even if you buy the monthly service where you have access to certain number of games for a certain time period time you are only limited to a certain number of games. What if those limited number of games doesn't include the games that you want to play?

Also, it's not like getting movies through Netflix where I could sit down for two hours and finish watching the movie. To finish a game it may take hours upon hours which may progress into weeks or months depending on the time you have to play the game. You are not done within two hours like in movies.Not to mention you may want to play multiplayer over the course of years, so you will have to rent out the game for years? LOL. That would mean I would have to rent out Left 4 Dead 2 for year which may actually turn out to be more than the cost of the game itself. LOL.

Not only is it limited to 720P resolution but the video feed is being compressed further (for obvious bandwidth reasons) which degrades the quality of the video and thus the game. I don't see this as much an improvement over consoles because you are limited to consoles resolution and not to mention the further degrading of quality of the graphics through compression.

Still wish it success though, but I don't think it's going to replace gaming rigs anytime soon.

I agree that Onlive is horrible right now. Though in a couple decades it could be something good.

hardware cost for onlive 0$ for your pc 100s just for parts

I dont really see it as all that different from Netflix.

You don't own anything you purchase from Netflix. The quality is below that of Blu-Ray discs.

As far as i can see it, OnLive probably provides the most flexible payments models of any service i've ever seen: You can pay in one lump sum for permanent access, in monthly fees for subscription access, or as a rental.

Once you stop paying for Netflix, you're left wiht nothing as well. Netflix isnt for everyone, but it appeals to alot of people.

I dont use OnLive, and probably wont for years. It's appeal isnt for everyine. But i can see its advantages and i dont think the negatives you bring up are very strong arguments.

I agree that Onlive is horrible right now. Though in a couple decades it could be something good.

UnknownElement4

hardware cost for onlive 0$ for your pc 100s just for parts

dontshackzmii

But you have to pay for rental of games instead of owning them. And have to fork over monthly fee for a limited number of games which may not even include the games you want to play.

And I will not be able to do any 1080P gaming with crystal clear graphics, where as Onlive is stuck at lame 720P with compressed video which makes it even look worse.

I dont really see it as all that different from Netflix.

You don't own anything you purchase from Netflix. The quality is below that of Blu-Ray discs.

As far as i can see it, OnLive probably provides the most flexible payments models of any service i've ever seen: You can pay in one lump sum for permanent access, in monthly fees for subscription access, or as a rental.

Once you stop paying for Netflix, you're left wiht nothing as well. Netflix isnt for everyone, but it appeals to alot of people.

I dont use OnLive, and probably wont for years. It's appeal isnt for everyine. But i can see its advantages and i dont think the negatives you bring up are very strong arguments.

XaosII

But once I watch a movie I am pretty much done with that movie. But with games there's a multiplayer component which makes you want to go back and keep on playing for months if not years.

I agree that Onlive is horrible right now. Though in a couple decades it could be something good.

UnknownElement4

But once I watch a movie I am pretty much done with that movie. But with games there's a multiplayer component which makes you want to go back and keep on playing for months if not years.

Xtasy26

So buy it from OnLive if you want to and revist it years later? I'm not seeing the problem.

I thought you need to buy the games and subscription. They changed that?

magicalclick

Yes, they changed it. You can buy the game at a flat-fee of $50-ish for a new title and get permanent access. Or you can pay monthly (i think $15per month) for unlimited access to a selection of titles (though its not that great of a list right now). Or you can rent the game for up to 3 days for $7 bucks.

Onlive is garbage and my current build will **** on Onlive for a very long time.

Not bad at all. Do they do cheaper price for older games? 50ish is a bit expensive for me. I usually wait for games to be cheaper.

magicalclick

I would imagine so. But i dont use the service so i dont know what their prices are now for their older games.

The problem with OnLive is that is has a horrible library and has too high of a response time.

So buy it from OnLive if you want to and revist it years later? I'm not seeing the problem.XaosII

Good for people like me with low end rigs. I can barely run Halo PC at medium settings at my PC's native resolution.vashkey

Your title needs work. Even midrange/semi-low end can match OnLive quality, without the compression artifacts.rpgs_shall_rule

Right. After all it doesn't take much to run games these days at 720P resolution. LOL. Not to mention 720P running off a computer will look a lot better than the compressed 720P of OnLive. That's probably one of the biggest gripe I have about OnLive.

[QUOTE="XaosII"]So buy it from OnLive if you want to and revist it years later? I'm not seeing the problem.RandoIph

You assume it will fail.

[QUOTE="RandoIph"]

[QUOTE="XaosII"]So buy it from OnLive if you want to and revist it years later? I'm not seeing the problem.XaosII

You assume it will fail.

The problem is "if" it does fail..your out the games and your money..In these struggling times..you never know whats going to happen..So why take the risk?

The problem is "if" it does fail..your out the games and your money..In these struggling times..you never know whats going to happen..So why take the risk?

masiisam

For the same reasons why you should use Hulu+, or Amazon Instant Video, or Steam, or any number of Digital Distribution competitors, or a new magazine, or a new phone carrier service.

Theres inherent risk in any subscription service. Your power company might fail leaving all your electronics useless. But the convenience of utilities outweighs that.

Some people may feel OnLive is too risky. I dont think it is. You liking or disliking the service has little bearing on how sustainable the service is.

onlives problem is that its just crap.HailCaesarHail

Good for people like me with low end rigs. I can barely run Halo PC at medium settings at my PC's native resolution.vashkey

Yeah, it's a complete waste of money. I was already convinced before you reassured me of some of the reasons why it's garbage.

[QUOTE="masiisam"]

The problem is "if" it does fail..your out the games and your money..In these struggling times..you never know whats going to happen..So why take the risk?

XaosII

For the same reasons why you should use Hulu+, or Amazon Instant Video, or Steam, or any number of Digital Distribution competitors, or a new magazine, or a new phone carrier service.

Theres inherent risk in any subscription service. Your power company might fail leaving all your electronics useless. But the convenience of utilities outweighs that.

Some people may feel OnLive is too risky. I dont think it is. You liking or disliking the service has little bearing on how sustainable the service is.

Well a few things are called to attention:

I would never find value or substantiate a risk concerning a start up company that has to overcome barriers of infrastructure. That said infrastructure will make or break this service. The services you expressed above are:

- established

- do not require the same infrastructure to be sustainable

- meet demographics that far exceed the video game segment in terms of volume, acceptance in the market place and convenience to the consumer.

I agree my opinion has little bearing on how sustainable the service is. What does have bearing on sustainability are the facts concerning the service and the barriers of entry ON-live is facing. Does it meet current consumer demand? Is the service profitable/meeting operational costs? Whats the services percepation to the mass consumer? Most importantly, how can On-live improve areas of their business when said infrastructure is out of their control?

I think ON-live is a great concept and it takes innovators to think outside of the box for industry to go.

With that said, I would never "buy" a full game(s) and not recieve a copy of goods(be it DD or physical) and just rely on the business model of a start up that have the barriers of entry ON-live is facing.

hardware cost for onlive 0$ for your pc 100s just for parts

dontshackzmii

Im impressed with onlive personally. Sure its nothing like my pc and it hurts my eyes to play games in such poor resolution, but its impressive that I could play any of those games on my 2nd PC that is about 10 years old.

It gives access to those games to people that don't have a console or new pc. They just need a fast internet connection and the crappiest PC out there.

Yea its a good idea gone wrong. I tried the trail a few weeks back with my phenomenal connection and the games looked awful. I tried Just cause 2, Metro 2033 and a few other games. Its720p max res plus the textures were horrible. Right now the only way it succeeds is if the games and service are cheaper than everything else.

Im impressed with onlive personally. Sure its nothing like my pc and it hurts my eyes to play games in such poor resolution, but its impressive that I could play any of those games on my 2nd PC that is about 10 years old.

It gives access to those games to people that don't have a console or new pc. They just need a fast internet connection and the crappiest PC out there.

Mr_Ditters

Their PC has to be able to decode 720p/1080p video. It's sometimes hard for super old/super low-end PCs (think basic netbooks) to do that, especially with 1080p.

It looks far worse than the console versions, let alone pc

Why own a gaming PC when you can let someone else own one for you.

Why own a gaming PC when you can let someone else own one for you.

hypoty

Because that gaming PC will let you run the games at much higher resolutions and settings than OnLives low 720 rez and settings with compressed video.

You liking or disliking the service has little bearing on how sustainable the service is.XaosII

Why own a gaming PC when you can let someone else own one for you.

hypoty

Rikusaki in 3...2...

once theres decent internet infrastructures in place to cope with systems like onlive it wont be much use.But at that point it will become a viable solution to the situation of high end PC gaming being costly but i need to emphasize the eventually part.

The cloud will inevitably take over and become a potent force against the likes of steam in around a decade or 2.Mind you a lot of people wont see it that way, but slowly we are movin to the cloud systems.Companies like Virgin media already offer a tv on demand which is essentially a cloud service with television programmes, its only a matter of times that it becomes as good as systems operated by the likes of them.

It runs great on iPad like devices.magicalclick

once theres decent internet infrastructures in place to cope with systems like onlive it wont be much use.But at that point it will become a viable solution to the situation of high end PC gaming being costly but i need to emphasize the eventually part.

The cloud will inevitably take over and become a potent force against the likes of steam in around a decade or 2.Mind you a lot of people wont see it that way, but slowly we are movin to the cloud systems.Companies like Virgin media already offer a tv on demand which is essentially a cloud service with television programmes, its only a matter of times that it becomes as good as systems operated by the likes of them.

razgriz_101

OnLive could work in South Korea or the U.K. but never in the U.S.

These are some shots from a few trials I've just played. I'm in the UK so obviously it's going to vary for me due to distance...

Thoughts? Meh....I don't like the floaty feeling controls and visual glitches. I will say that it's got a very nice UI though which is easy to use. There's a very limited selection of games though - nothing which I'd be interested in particularly.

In time it may be awesome, but as for now it's......alright-ish?

^^ Those images look pretty bad.