Onlive - new gaming service

[Darkstar707]

Website:
http://www.onlive.com/

And


http://gdc.gamespot.com/video/6206692/gdc-2009-onlive-press-conference?hd=1

Listen to this...

I really don't have anything to say about it right now. I am still trying to decide whether it will be good or bad for the industry, and us..

 

[Varric]

Isn't there already a topic on this?

Any ways I don't mind, it's just another add-on which is useful for the newer guys on the pc not knowing how to install, meeting minimum specs and stuff, I also have the feeling that it'll probably also increase the rise in PC games.

It's not all that bad, just like a console version of the pc letting you try out demos almost instantly and stuff, but aslong as it doesn't affect me and my games then I won't mind.

 

[Darkstar707]

Thing is it's worse than DRM, they have ALL the games you buy....

If they got enough hype out on this then people start buying it until it becomes a monopoly and then they start charging 150$ a month for it and goodbye "video games".


Oh and I didn't see another topic, and thanks for moving this lamb, didn't see the sub sub sub forum hehe.

 

[Varric]

It's 20$ a month and 240$ a year for using their services, which is already alot of money, they also get a fraction of game's revenue so if they even make it as high as 50$ people will stop using it and it'll go baaankruuupt.

p.s what a slut

 

[Sir Prince]

Oh and I didn't see another topic, and thanks for moving this lamb, didn't see the sub sub sub forum hehe.

We have this thing called "Search", it's rediculously easy to use and very efficient.

 

[Darkstar707]

It's 20$ a month and 240$ a year for using their services, which is already alot of money, they also get a fraction of game's revenue so if they even make it as high as 50$ people will stop using it and it'll go baaankruuupt.

p.s what a slut

That's my point. People ARE stupid enough to buy something insanely overpriced. Look at apple, you can buy most PC's with the same hardware at half the price. (sorry elenmare)

It's all about marketing. So far, it looks like they are doing a good job at it.



And I used search - thanks for acting lame. Onlive has been discussed very quickly in another forum, but not a topic all about it.

 

[Sir Prince]

There was a thread where it was brought up quite a bit, can't find it now thoguh for some reason.

 

[Archonsod]

I'll believe it when I can see it working out in the real world.

 

[jasonxfri13th]

I'll believe it when I can see it working out in the real world.

Same here.
I can not see someone being able to play Crysis at max with it looking the same as if it was on a super high end PC, I am guessing it will sacrifice some quality in exchange for better performance. You will probably also need a very good internet connection (which I have) but it is over priced. I spend around $180-200 on games a year so it would be a waste for me, plus I can always sell them and get back $10-20. But then again Xbox live makes you buy the game and pay for online play, but this is totally different. IMO, this will end up as a failure.

 

[Darkstar707]

I'll believe it when I can see it working out in the real world.

Oh I agree. But the chance of it getting through in this world of misinformation is just too much..

I mean, this would RAPE the entire industry of gaming. Can someone say monopoly if this got popular?

 

[Archonsod]

No it wouldn't. If people were that willing to buy into online subscription/distribution there'd be no such thing as a gaming retail store by now.

 

[jasonxfri13th]

No it wouldn't. If people were that willing to buy into online subscription/distribution there'd be no such thing as a gaming retail store by now.

True.
People are slowly buying more games from online sites but most sales still come from stores and probably will for a long time.

 

[MasacruTheArcher]

I was always wondering when a "pc" or something will come out and we'll be able to play everything on MAX / good fps without needing to upgrade .Now Onlive showed up .We'll see about it when it's out everywhere but it looks awesome .

But once again i hate one thing : Monthly subscribtion , yep i know it's the type that needs such thing but you gotta pay monthly and then for games < i would rather subscribe to mmo's (World war II online) and so on .Besides it makes me think of xbox : you gotta pay to play online .Which is why i still prefer the ps3

 

[Mondos]

I'm not sure if a lot of people are going to be willing to pay for this especially since cable companies are starting to force idiotically low caps on bandwidth. Cogeco has already started doing it, after I see the bill for this month I'm probably going to move to Teksavvy. Cogeco - 60gb/10 Mbps for 52.95$ without tax versus Teksavvy - unlimited gb/5 Mbps fr 39.95$.

 

[Varric]

I too hate monthly subscription, I'd rather stick to something like steam - something that lasts forever.

Also I saw a video with them playing crysis on max on a low-end laptop, it's just impossible - gotta be a video and them pretending to play it.

Since it's also going to be showing videos of a lot of games at the same time you'd need to have a really fast internet connection, it's like watching 50+ live full quality videos at the same time.

Their only doing this to get people hyped up and get a good start of money, after a month or two people are going to start complaining, just wait.

 

[Wadjet]

this sounds suspiciously like vaporware to me

 

[Sir Prince]

I'm not sure if a lot of people are going to be willing to pay for this especially since cable companies are starting to force idiotically low caps on bandwidth. Cogeco has already started doing it, after I see the bill for this month I'm probably going to move to Teksavvy. Cogeco - 60gb/10 Mbps for 52.95$ without tax versus Teksavvy - unlimited gb/5 Mbps fr 39.95$.

In Canada everyone (afaiK) has capped the bandwidth for ... ever maybe.

@Varric: Well DUH, no matter how awesome anything is people will complain anyways, wether or not the problem is their own stupidity.

 

[MasacruTheArcher]

In the demonstration link , latest , they show crysis gameplay on that big screen , i am wondering what connection they used ...also on a screen like that if i am not wrong you need even a better connection .If i remember well i read somewhere that , as bad the connection is , as lower the resolution will be or something like that ...but anyway on that screen it surely needs more uber connection , if it's not that then i am still wondering the connection they used at the show .

http://gdc.gamespot.com/video/6206692/gdc-2009-onlive-press-conference?hd=1

 

[Skyrage]

This has sounded way too fishy to be true ever since I first heard about this. I just cannot imagine how they would get this to work without having the processing power and bandwidth to support at least 10 Skynets. And there is only that far that you can package data anyway, so I cannot see how they could have come up with an algorithm that can send that vast amount of data required in order to maintain a very high visual quality as well as the framerate. And even if there was such a thing wouldn't it mean that the PC would still have to work it's ass off in order to unpack/decode it all again?

 

[Elenmmare]

This has sounded way too fishy to be true ever since I first heard about this. I just cannot imagine how they would get this to work without having the processing power and bandwidth to support at least 10 Skynets. And there is only that far that you can package data anyway, so I cannot see how they could have come up with an algorithm that can send that vast amount of data required in order to maintain a very high visual quality as well as the framerate. And even if there was such a thing wouldn't it mean that the PC would still have to work it's ass off in order to unpack/decode it all again?

I always thought it was just setting up a feed where you put in your controls, the computer in Skynet does the action, then shows it on your screen a la video stream. So you're not actually playing the game on your computer, just watching it. Maybe.