OnLive the fture of gaming?

That's weird. Netflix's streaming service really wasn't a success until it appeared on a console? Despite the fact that near everyone owns a computer?

If OnLive wants to appear on consoles, console manufacturers won't allow it. It would totally change their business model, and possibly be a threat. It's already a threat if it appears on P Cs and T Vs, but it would be a bigger threat to the console manufacturers on their actual systems.

Also, they've already got something about like a console but cheaper. I agree this is most likely to succeed as an intranet service integrated into cable boxes alongside on-demand PPV service. Companies like LodgeNet have had this in hotels for ages, so it's been a matter of time until telcos and cable companies tried it, especially since this would help them kill net neutrality.

Eric,

So has anyone actually tried this, or did everyone just dismiss it out of hand on principle?

I went ahead, signed up, and downloaded the launcher yesterday and played free trials of Prince Of Persia '08, Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands, and Assassin's Creed II. Eventually I bought a 3-day pass for The Forgotten Sands and marathoned it — it was nearly flawless. The picture quality was about that of a Youtube video in 720p, which wasn't terrible, and there was about the teensiest bit of button lag, but otherwise it was just like playing it on my computer, except without the tendencies for my laptop to overheat. And this was on wifi — I imagine even the one time I did lose my connection (when you do, it tries to reconnect and you pick up right where you were, unless it times out after 5 minutes) wouldn't have been a problem if I were hooked up to ethernet.

Of course, my home's network is pretty good — I imagine the story will be significantly different when I go back to school next week.

But another cool feature I haven't seen anyone mention: random people can hop in and watch you play (in the "Arena"), and can thumbs up (cheer) or down (jeer) depending on...how they feel I guess. But someone hopped in and watched me play the entire second half of The Forgotten Sands and it was pretty nice to get a cheer from him whenever I pulled off something cool.

Aside from network quality, I'd say OnLive's biggest problem right now is the game library — it doesn't really have a lot that most people would want except probably Batman and Assassin's Creed. I'm hoping that that will be solved later on — because honestly, I think this does have potential.

edited 16th Jan '11 9:47:05 AM by WildKnight

The blind man walking off the cliff is not making a leap of faith.

I have it. I've been lucky enough to be blessed with a blazing fast connection (currently uses Fi OS) and experience no noticable lag to speak off. The image quality can vary but 90% of the time it manages to stay sharp. I'm not sure if it is the future of gaming, but I feel this might make PC gaming far more feasable to people who don't own powerfull $700+ rigs with the latest video cards and/or drivers. Played Tomb Raider Underworld with the Play Pack Beta. My biggest gripe is that in order to use a gamepad, it must use X Input (X360 compatible), so my other gamepad that uses HID won't work.

I have it too and love it to death, but it's just way too demanding on bandwidth. I moved into a house with a 60gb/month bandwidth cap (it was only 40 before I moved it) and 3 other internet users. On Live takes up about 2gb/hour, so I can only use it a few hours at the end of the month if we haven't hit the cap.

It's an incredible piece of technology, but if bandwidth caps become the norm for IS Ps, there is no way On Live could be the future. In my eyes, that's the only thing holding it back from being a serious contender in the gaming industry.

Actually, they recently brought the bandwidth cap down to 2Mbps which should help people who have lower bandwidth caps. I would imagine they could even bring it lower with their improving new compression algorithms.

Though not directly On Live related, the Steve Perlman seminar at the Columbia University really intruiged me. All this new technology...:

I don't like On Live. I tried it and wasn't impressed. The visuals were degraded in such a way that you could tell that the visuals were being streamed. I invested into a decent computer, so it's not necessary for me.

However, it could have some use if you had a netbook or something.

"Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person that doesn't get it."

Was there any lag whatsoever?

If there was any, I didn't notice it. But I've played Unreal Tornament 3 with other players and as far as I can tell there's none.

Who's your ISP? I highly recommend it to those who have Verizon Fi OS or such, as the image quality and response is actually pretty good (with those IS Ps). I only have a laptop to work with and some disk space, so to me its more cost effective than shelling $700 for a dedicated rig which I have to maintain (i.e. Keep virus free, constantly update, etc.).

edited 15th Aug '11 2:24:42 PM by s5555

I gave onlive a try on my decrepit but necessary Windows XP system... I was shocked. outside of the occasional interference from wifi I managed to run games that shouldn't even exist on my operating system.

I would say if a college student lived in a place with a really great internet connection (most universitys should have something decent) then they could save a ton of money on not having to buy themselves a console or gaming rig.

Apocalypse: Dirge Of Swans.

Well, the system enabling people to play current games on old hardware is a good thing. Now we'll need to see if companies start using it as an unbreakable (or close enough) form of DRM like Eric DVH is so concerned about.

On the other hand I can't quite conceive of any way they can implement paid DLC, which may be a good thing.

People don't want to watch movies on their computers. They want to watch movies on their TVs. Netflix's big push on the Xbox 360 was the first big push Netflix had for something that connected to the television. Until OnLive pushes its use on televisions, it will remain a niche product.

Wizard Needs Food Badly

Onlive is pushing for television. They are making there own console and are selling themselves on google tv. See here

edited 29th Sep '11 11:27:22 PM by stevebat

Apocalypse: Dirge Of Swans.

But they aren't exactly pushing it for the mainstream consumer yet like 360 did for Netflix. Yeah sure, I could order an OnLive device online, but where are they in places like Walmart and Best Buy?

Wizard Needs Food Badly

Please fail please fail please fail

Requiem ~ September 2010 - October 2011 [Banned 4 Life]

That's...not going to work.

People who want consoles buy consoles. Netflix on TV worked because it's in the TV.

Not to mention that the internet really won't be reliable enough in the US for them to push to replace consoles for at least 5-10 years.

edited 30th Sep '11 10:16:35 AM by INUH

Infinite Tree: an experimental story

The danger here is, if this catches on, maybe console manufacturers will follow suit and a) switch flagship games to digital distribution stripping rights away from the consumer, b)reduce the hardware capabilities of consoles. 3D, motion sensing, gimmick after gimmick has been strapped onto seventh gen consoles in competition for market share, reducing the overall gameplay experience. I don't want to imagine the next generation.

edited 30th Sep '11 10:19:41 AM by Shichibukai

Requiem ~ September 2010 - October 2011 [Banned 4 Life]

Console manufacturers are too smart for that.

And besides, 3D and motion controls are up to the developers to use or not. If they're implemented at the expense of gameplay, that's because the game's being made by someone who doesn't know how to make games.

Infinite Tree: an experimental story

On Live does have limitations. It cannot allow motion controls for obvious reasons and first party developers probably won't touch it with a 9 foot pole.

Apocalypse: Dirge Of Swans.

@Shichi: Hey, you know how people thought smartphones wouldn't catch on?

Yeah...probably better to hope for it to succeed and then watch it crash and burn.

More seriously, if it means a switch to Digital Distribution, then Steam will either kill every other company's offerings or those companies will have to work harder-and that's assuming Steam won't leap ahead of the rest.

edited 30th Sep '11 2:25:01 PM by RocketDude

"Hipsters: the most dangerous gang in the US." - Pacific Mackerel

Hmm, Digital distribution is not really the problem. I love Steam, as long as it remains a stable platform for buying and downloading games. You can play a game as much as you want after you authorise it on steam, because you hold the files on your computer. Onlive requires you to be online all the time. Most perfect, intrusive form of DRM built in by default. EA will probably love it for that purpose. I wonder how people would mod and customise onlive games.

edited 30th Sep '11 4:47:53 PM by Shichibukai

Requiem ~ September 2010 - October 2011 [Banned 4 Life]

^^Onlive isn't digital distribution. It's streaming. You never actually get the game. Your computer is just serving the keyboard and monitor.

edited 30th Sep '11 4:35:20 PM by INUH

Infinite Tree: an experimental story

^Ah.

Problem is, streaming is resource-prohibitive.

"Hipsters: the most dangerous gang in the US." - Pacific Mackerel

Streaming is only bandwidth prohibiting. It actually takes very little computer resources to show. That's their biggest advantage ANYTHING can run On Live. and if your system can handle On Live then your system can play ANY game on On Live.

edited 30th Sep '11 5:13:11 PM by stevebat

Apocalypse: Dirge Of Swans.

As long as you have a good Internet connection, yes.

What do you get if you burn tomatoes? Ash Ketchump.