Would Steam and Onlive have exclusives?

Obviously Steam has a gigantic library vastly superior to Onlive. but since Onlive is still in its infancy, I think we can expect it to grow. So as Onlive starts to challenge steam do you think that Valve won't allow games like Half Life or Left for Dead on Onlive and Onlive would buy developers to make games only for their service? It would be like a PC only system wars! Or would they work together so they can sell games to people with amazing hardware or amazing connections (4 mega bits per second is NOT that bad guys). I say this because I've been getting into steam ever since I got my new PC but I've been playing with onlive since November and that is pretty cool too!

I guess I mean you can't play MoonBase Alpha on Onlive.

onlive is terrible

nobody i know even plays it

ppl i know talk about steam especially pc gamers

even pc gamers i know dont even talk about onlive an i liked there game lineup it looks horrible all of em were bad an the prices looked bad too

I guess I mean you can't play MoonBase Alpha on Onlive.

LegatoSkyheart

I guess I mean where they start advertising the fact. When the PS3 came out the 360 was out for a year and missed quite a few games like that years Call of Duty (2 I think). But when Onlive grows to be big and gets most games the same day steam does, will Valve hold on to the games they develop or also put them on onlive?

onlive is terrible

nobody i know even plays it

ppl i know talk about steam especially pc gamers

even pc gamers i know dont even talk about onlive an i liked there game lineup it looks horrible all of em were bad an the prices looked bad too

ZarbonX

Don't knock it til you tried it. I use a $400 laptop and, frankly, it sucks for gaming. Splinter Cell Chaos Theory probably looks the nicest, but I can run all any valve game, bioshock, and a few others. So the ability to play AC2 is a dream through steam. Onlive lets me do that and it looks almost as good as it would on consoles. That is why its relevant to me atleast.

well there is no valve game that can be run without steam, as well as a number of non valve games like metro 2033 mafia 2 etc, so unless they run the console versions, they would have to do some deal with steam for them to work. imprezawrx500

These Hardware companys will never let this happen

Well Google wants it to happen, but Microsoft doesnt

These Hardware companys will never let this happen

Well Google wants it to happen, but Microsoft doesnt

HaloinventedFPS

love the sig, but how do MS and Google have a say in it? Onlive isn't owned by either.... are they?

[QUOTE="ZarbonX"]

onlive is terrible

nobody i know even plays it

ppl i know talk about steam especially pc gamers

even pc gamers i know dont even talk about onlive an i liked there game lineup it looks horrible all of em were bad an the prices looked bad too

RandomWinner

Don't knock it til you tried it. I use a $400 laptop and, frankly, it sucks for gaming. Splinter Cell Chaos Theory probably looks the nicest, but I can run all any valve game, bioshock, and a few others. So the ability to play AC2 is a dream through steam. Onlive lets me do that and it looks almost as good as it would on consoles. That is why its relevant to me atleast.

Well it's no where near the quality of consoles when I played, never mind PC.

[QUOTE="RandomWinner"]

[QUOTE="ZarbonX"]

onlive is terrible

nobody i know even plays it

ppl i know talk about steam especially pc gamers

even pc gamers i know dont even talk about onlive an i liked there game lineup it looks horrible all of em were bad an the prices looked bad too

Bebi_vegeta

Don't knock it til you tried it. I use a $400 laptop and, frankly, it sucks for gaming. Splinter Cell Chaos Theory probably looks the nicest, but I can run all any valve game, bioshock, and a few others. So the ability to play AC2 is a dream through steam. Onlive lets me do that and it looks almost as good as it would on consoles. That is why its relevant to me atleast.

Well it's no where near the quality of consoles when I played, never mind PC.

It's all about your connection. Mine is about 5.5mb/s (bits not bytes!) and makes games look incredible. Yours is obviously worse. Crysis looks no where near as it would on consoles when I do it through steam because I have a terrible PC for gaming, yours I'm sure looks better than consoles.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="RandomWinner"]

Don't knock it til you tried it. I use a $400 laptop and, frankly, it sucks for gaming. Splinter Cell Chaos Theory probably looks the nicest, but I can run all any valve game, bioshock, and a few others. So the ability to play AC2 is a dream through steam. Onlive lets me do that and it looks almost as good as it would on consoles. That is why its relevant to me atleast.

RandomWinner

Well it's no where near the quality of consoles when I played, never mind PC.

It's all about your connection. Mine is about 5.5mb/s (bits not bytes!) and makes games look incredible. Yours is obviously worse. Crysis looks no where near as it would on consoles when I do it through steam because I have a terrible PC for gaming, yours I'm sure looks better than consoles.

I have a 25Mbps = 3.1Mb/s. Your right, my connection is worst then yours... but overall, great connection... and I think better then most people.

[QUOTE="RandomWinner"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

Well it's no where near the quality of consoles when I played, never mind PC.

Bebi_vegeta

It's all about your connection. Mine is about 5.5mb/s (bits not bytes!) and makes games look incredible. Yours is obviously worse. Crysis looks no where near as it would on consoles when I do it through steam because I have a terrible PC for gaming, yours I'm sure looks better than consoles.

I have a 25Mbps = 3.1Mb/s. Your right, my connection is worst then yours... but overall, great connection... and I think better then most people.

I just upgraded mine from about that. It worked for everything, I really didn't lag, but onlive sure as hell was crap on that. It was an average connection, but I think upgrading that is more cost effective than an actual PC.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="RandomWinner"]

It's all about your connection. Mine is about 5.5mb/s (bits not bytes!) and makes games look incredible. Yours is obviously worse. Crysis looks no where near as it would on consoles when I do it through steam because I have a terrible PC for gaming, yours I'm sure looks better than consoles.

RandomWinner

I have a 25Mbps = 3.1Mb/s. Your right, my connection is worst then yours... but overall, great connection... and I think better then most people.

I just upgraded mine from about that. It worked for everything, I really didn't lag, but onlive sure as hell was crap on that. It was an average connection, but I think upgrading that is more cost effective than an actual PC.

Well not really, I upgrade my PC... and it's also my everyday tool and entertainement.

[QUOTE="ZarbonX"]

onlive is terrible

nobody i know even plays it

ppl i know talk about steam especially pc gamers

even pc gamers i know dont even talk about onlive an i liked there game lineup it looks horrible all of em were bad an the prices looked bad too

RandomWinner

Don't knock it til you tried it. I use a $400 laptop and, frankly, it sucks for gaming. Splinter Cell Chaos Theory probably looks the nicest, but I can run all any valve game, bioshock, and a few others. So the ability to play AC2 is a dream through steam. Onlive lets me do that and it looks almost as good as it would on consoles. That is why its relevant to me atleast.

Netbook/low-end (Intel GMA IGP/VIA S3 IGP) laptop PC's weakness in GPUs will change with arrival of AMD Ontario CGPU (with Radeon HD 6250) based netbook (~$399 to $425 USD).

Assassin's Creed 2 PC on AMD Radeon HD 5450 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZsTbYQn0yo

"Runs perfect at 30 FPS with 1280 x 1024 resolution and highest possible settings(NO VYSNC!)"

While AMD Radeon HD 5450's memory type could range from DDR2** to DDR3, AMD Ontario CGPU is strict to the faster DDR3 standard. Both Ontario's Radeon HD 6250 and Radeon HD 5450 uses 80 SPUGpGPU/8 ROPs design.

**Some cheap a$$ vendor glues the slower DDR2 with 5450 and crippling its performance.

In terms of bills of material cost, AMD Ontario easily matches Intel "Pineview" solution.

OnLive would need to finance the development of such game. bassicaly pay devs huge money for it, as onLive won't propably ever be popular enough to make it profitable to develop games specificaly for it.

It's all about your connection. Mine is about 5.5mb/s (bits not bytes!) and makes games look incredible. Yours is obviously worse. Crysis looks no where near as it would on consoles when I do it through steam because I have a terrible PC for gaming, yours I'm sure looks better than consoles.RandomWinner

You mean "bytes not bits." Hopefully you got that backwards, because 5.5 megaBITS per second is less than 1 megaBYTE per second. Not very good.

Either way, OnLive only uses up to a 6 Megabit connection, or about 750 Kilobytes per second. I benchmarked it myself. Having a connection better than about 6 Megabit/s will not improve OnLive image quality, because OnLive does not serve bitrates higher than that.

Oh, and even with a connection well above that, the image looks like garbage unless the picture being shown is perfectly still. Looks FAR worse than consoles in motion. It's almost comical how blurry things get when there's any motion on-screen.

I believe ONlive is a console competitor more than a PC competitor.

onlive is terrible

nobody i know even plays it

ppl i know talk about steam especially pc gamers

even pc gamers i know dont even talk about onlive an i liked there game lineup it looks horrible all of em were bad an the prices looked bad too

ZarbonX

The world is more than just who you personally know. OnLive has some potential but the fact that playing is based on internet infrastructure and not ever one has great hi-speed lines to their house limits what OnLive can do at this point.

Steam also had the wealth of smaller, indie games to back it up, not just the big PC releases.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="RandomWinner"]

It's all about your connection. Mine is about 5.5mb/s (bits not bytes!) and makes games look incredible. Yours is obviously worse. Crysis looks no where near as it would on consoles when I do it through steam because I have a terrible PC for gaming, yours I'm sure looks better than consoles.

RandomWinner

I have a 25Mbps = 3.1Mb/s. Your right, my connection is worst then yours... but overall, great connection... and I think better then most people.

I just upgraded mine from about that. It worked for everything, I really didn't lag, but onlive sure as hell was crap on that. It was an average connection, but I think upgrading that is more cost effective than an actual PC.

Also, since you specifically mentioned Crysis not looking good on your pc through Steam, how's it look on Onlive for ya?

I believe ONlive is a console competitor more than a PC competitor.

Filthybastrd

If that's true,

then it will never succeed.

I've seen their little hardware box thing, and You need retail to support it....the Targets, the Best Buy's, the Walmarts, Gamestops, etc etc.

Why would they stock it if there are no games for them to sell?

Onlive for retail is dead on arrival, pretty much.

Steam already has exclusives - that is, games that require Steam in order to run. But because Steam is a free service, and because the games can be bought on other digital download services, people probably don't think of them as exclusives.

That doesn't preclude those same games from appearing on Onlive, though (for instance, Mafia II is only playable via Steam or Onlive).