I know what you mean dude. Specially in such a time. I hate to say it, but that's business... Definately any sort of monopoly will be nonbeneficial to the consumer. I see this as a lot of Steam popping up around, and you choose which one you want to tie with... based on what they offer ( maybe free controllers & Microconsole as part of a 2 year contract) etc... Just like taking a phone with AT&T. Can you see the shackles around your wrist now? We'll be cornered... unless a developper creates its own cloud and sell its own game... (unless that is some big shot company like MS), it is not worth the cost for them to set up their own cloud.
What is going to mushroom all over the place now are a lot of these providers like OnLive, boasting their relationship to main gaming developers as well as their Cloud capacity, high end servers, with partners as AMD, Intel, Nvidia or ATI... It comes down to the consumer to make a judicious choice. I shall stop commenting now less I be seen as a fanboy. Like I said, never get attached to the technology of today, it will break your heart tomorrow. Who knows what revolutionary system might come in and scrap OnLive tmrw! My aim was just to open the eyes of some here and prevent some close minded posting made by some naysayers in an attempt to unload their frustration that technology is too fast (their console or rig is rotting by the day). Yes, tech is too fast and everyone of us here, will all get our cash pawned just because we love it!
@-r4z0rbl4d3- Yes I agree. Developers would not want to develop 2 versions, it defeats the purpose of the whole system. Now what it boils down to is the ability of local companies to invest in cloud systems to provide that kind of gaming service locally. Believe it, once there is a demand for something, lots of companies will jump on it and provide. Take a cue on cable TV services. I understand broadband is not as pervasive in the US, but it should come soon. Here where I live, 100Mbps (Shared) is only $50. And a dedicated line of 10Mbps is around $30 smth. Personally, I am not worried about whether such a system fails or not. I am more concerned about the obvious shackles around wrists that such a third party system can come in and tie to the consumers hand. And whether we like it or not, it might become a reality soon. So as gamers/consumers will we really have a choice if developers switch to this mode of distribution? About Sony and Microsoft... I won't be surprised if they announce their own soon. Microsoft already plans to run one of their OS as such, pay to use online system.
what most noobs here do not understand, the era of wannabe Hardcore Gamer building their "gaming rig" or "Next Gen" beast will probably die with that kind of distribution. What Onlive is telling consumers is, look we take care of all that sh*t and ensure that you play the best games at the best quality without any hassle. Even an old aunt could understand that concept. And to developers, Onlive says, we have the juice, give us whatever you want and we'll make sure our servers run and feed it fluidly to the user. What that entails is GTA V coming out, requiring maybe 32 or more cores just to process the environment... (GTA4 already requires 4 cores to process particular parts of its environment. Anything less and its a bottleneck). It's basically free for all. Now who will care to develop a game for your "next-gen" beast running with a 4 or 8 cores?
Now, one can be sceptical about this... but rejecting the concept on the sole ground that one's console or PC Rig is better, or the fact that one is still with 512kbps is absurd. There is no comparison to be drawn between console, PCs and Onlive here. What a gaming developer currently sees in this system are: 1. Extreme amount of power to churn the most powerfully realistic graphics possible without having to wonder whether this will scale down to other computers and platforms. 2. Available power means they can churn out games that uses more cores (16, 32, 64 and more) rather than being restricted to hardware that users have today (4 - 8 cores max) Developers today are only limited by the user's hardware, once that barrier is broken, it will give them creative freedom as somebody mentioned below. (This is where PC and console are abandoned as preferential platform for games, they will never be able to match, unless the next PS4 comes with 4 servers) 3. Drastically reduced piracy, who is going to pirate a game that is designed to be a service and not software to run locally? Unless you plan to run your own servers for the benefit of the neighbourhood! 4. Ensured revenue for developers through inability to pirate. (the biggest selling point I believe for PC Games developers) 5. No need to develop games for different platforms. One version is developed and the world plays! 6. Minimised compatibility issues. Compatibility issue happens only on server side. And if ever it happens it's easier to resolve as it will be running under a specified set of hardware. A lot of compatibility issues are difficult to resolve as different gamers run different OS with different hardware making it hard to diagnose a particular problem. 7. No need to issue hard copies (DVD, CD Case, manual etc...), save money on physical marketing. Now if as a developer I decide not to issue hard copies... does that mean that those arguing that they need to possess a hard copy for collection's sake will stop playing? What do you do then as this becomes the ubiquitous way of distributing content? Do you stick with you PS3 or so called "Gaming Rig" replaying old games endlessly while others are enjoying Next-Gen games with basically nothing? Where consumers can be sceptical: 1. The fact that it is a risk to a consumer that the provider (Onlive) goes bust. What happens to the virtual copies of games bought? (Someone mentioned that below. A very good point to raise.) A way to solve this I believe is to provide one with Serial Codes for games bought online as it is the case today. These serials are then transferrable among other providers, allowing you to unlock the games already bought if you switch provider for any reason. 2. Pricing in relation to content. What schemes are available? Is it like getting cable TV, with a base subscription fee and additional fees for premium games...? If yes, how much? (Here, no need mentioning that one will turn to normal games if the subscription is too expensive... as speculated above, this system might erase conventional ways of distributing games. Meaning games won't be on DVDs available at your local shops anymore.) Starting to feel cornered? That's how cable TV is running basically. As consumers we are cornered. It's either Cable or Crap TV... and the provider knows that and will take advantage. (They do already by feeding us the same content over and over again...) 3. Too many providers... which one to choose from... This might bring back the whole vicious cycle of exclusives over again, just like the mobile phone market. My advice is to wait and see, OnLive might be the original thing, but I can see a lot more companies taking this head on and providing better services and reliability to consumers as this pick on.
And for users skeptic about the delivery of content when everybody is accessing it at the same time, again that's why cloud computing has been developped. It does not matter how many accesses the information at the same time. It is a scalable system whereby you are limited only by your own connection to the web. Please do read about cloud computing and its advantages... and you will see what possibilities are available with such a system. Basically, a software can become a service that is independent of the client's hardware... you can argue about possessing a hard copy etc... but if in the first place the company do not make the hard copy available, there is no point arguing. It's like telling ESPN you'd rather have a hardcopy of that Ball Match shown last Sunday! So, if piracy is to happen in such a case, it will have to be in the form of a service also, cause obviously no one home will have the dedicated hardware to run the service. And what's with the possessing of stuff... why does everyone feel that possessing a hard or digital copy is crucial? If the box is that important to some then I guess developpers should take note of that. However, do you honestly think that you have a hardcopy or digital copy of WOW for example? You could just have registered online through a cloud system and played it, it would have been the same right? The box and CD you currently own are worthless... Everyone wants a hard copy but has recourse to NO_CD cracks to bypass CDROM detection for convenience. You are scared of your game getting lost? In a cloud system there are more chances of your desktop or console crashing than the cloud crashing. And if ever it crashes... guess what, it'll be there problem and not yours alone!
Whatever games you own now keep them, and dont expect all of them to be OnLive. This system is not designed for these, not even the latest crysis. They are only being shown for demonstration and launching. Once developpers understand the power that are at their hands through such a system as OnLive, they will probably harness that to good use, meaning, designing next-gen games that require multiple cores (16,32, 64 or even more) that current gaming rigs or consoles cannot provide yet. Now will you stick to your consoles and PC when you know you cannot get your hands on systems that can play these Next-Gen games? No right, you would not want to be left out of the loop... While a lot of people have doubts about such a system, don't think of it as a centralised base of servers that will need maintenance at the same time and will not be available if one break down etc... Think decentralization, that's the power of cloud computing, it's like harnessing the power of the web to do things... Does the web ever crashes or is unavailable? No right? there is always a way for information to get to you on the web independent of whatever part of it is down. ... and it is already used by Adobe to provide you with the latest Photoshop online. Meaning you do not need the application on your PC, just launch your browser and that's enough. It even take less memory to do stuff, of course at the expense of internet speed. Now... I'm not trying to sell Onlive to anyone... I do not like the way it is presented to the public. I am skeptic about Onlive but not the concept and I believe some companies out there can do it better. A lot of posts here are very close-minded, fanboys-like. One piece of advice, never get attached to the technology of today, it will break your heart tomorrow. Always be ready to move on... that's how we progress.
Why re-buy old games? I can't understand that concept. I'll just keep my PS3 and Xbox when I want to play the old stuff. I'm gonna get OnLive just to take advantage of new games. When you gonna buy the supposedly next-gen PS4, it'll probably not support old games anyway right?, just like the PS3 trashed PS2 games. OnLive or every "OnDemand" gaming system that will come out of this is not meant to replace the current PS3 or Xbox or even Highest gaming rig around... this is bigger. You might have the cash to shell on the best gaming rig today but can that beat the combine power of supercomps constantly being upgraded? I doubt it. Like the Wii, this system is gonna bring gaming to a whole new level and reach further to non-gamers. OnLive might not take exclusives from the consoles or PC yet, however, as this system gain grounds in every house, developpers will start turning to it (they already have, cause it smells good cash and no pirating) and who knows what kind of exclusive deals can be made! Like I said, if Sony and Microsoft jumps in, its gonna be the future... like in or not, fanboys or not... I'll be surprised if the PS4 even make it out... These systems are going to push broadband for everyone.
Maybe OnLive, marketing and way of presenting that system does not convince some here. Just wait and see, if Microsoft & Sony jumps on the bandwagon in a few months, then it’s probably the future of gaming, only they might do it better. Basically, I see such a system as a win-win situation for both consumers and developers. It’s sad to have recourse to a third party to come in to regulate the industry like that. But along the years both consumers and developers have had to suffer abuses from each other which have been hurting sales as well as trust in the industry. Why does one pirate? Among some of the reasons is lack of trust... in the quality of games produced by certain developers often backed up by reviewers. Now, let’s not judge OnLive for what it says it will be and imagine the shortcomings in the game industry that an OnLive type of system promises to solve: 1. Quality of games will make it back to No.1 on the list of priorities, rather than developers making a quick buck. 2. More competition among developers. Consumer’s ability to test before buy and decide which games are worth or not. 3. High-end graphics for all. Supercomputers meaning that developers will only design for the best. Less time spent on testing for compatibility issues with low end machines. 4. No more Exclusives everybody gets to play the game when it’s out. 5. No need to download updates, patches etc... 6. Reduced chances of piracy. If that particular game is tailor made to run on high end supercomputers with 1000 CPU... why would someone want to pirate that? 7. No DRM or GFWL to deal with. 8. The servers become your hard disk... no use arguing about possessing a hard copy of the game... anyway one will never have that kind of supercomputers to play it. 9. Highest End gaming at the touch of a button. 10. Last but not least, end the endless forums of childish trash talk of PC v/s Consoles... there is no comparing the PS3, Xbox or PC to such a system. 11. No need to argue about DLC, I imagine with such a system it will be easy for one to buy or rent the DLC as well. Some issues though... concerning mostly PC gamers What happens to the modding community? Does review websites such as gamespot turn to previews only... obviously there’ll be no need reviewing as anyone will be able to try any game any time. I imagine the fees hierarchy might be as complex as getting cable TV.
newfool's comments