Support NeoGAF

[Hinomura]

I still don't get why input lag would be differen't from network lag. Can someone elaborate?

Input Lag
- Controller lag (almost zero, pratically not perceived by human being)
- Cheap adaptors (used to play with different system controller; good ones don't return perceivable lag)
- LCD TV ("gaming" screens/modes feature 10 or less ms lag)
- CRT TV (pratically zero lag)
- It's stable in time

Network Lag
- Variable in delay and in rate
- Peaks may be frequent and reach huge delays


In real life
Playing a single player game in local grants you a minimum / almost null lag which keeps constant in time. Playing a single player game in remote adds network lag to input lag. Since network lag is more consistent, not fixed in time and unpredictable, rhythm / reflex / action games result less enjoyable or possibly almost unplayable.

 

[Version 3.0]

I still don't get why input lag would be differen't from network lag. Can someone elaborate?

As simply as I can put it:

Local play: you press a button, the signal travels (at worst) across the room, gets processed, a new frame of video is output, travels down a few feet of wire and is displayed on your screen. This takes 100 milliseconds.

OnLive play: you press a button, the signal travels across the room, onto the internet, 100 miles through who knows how many routing changes, gets processed, a new frame of video is output, gets encoded for internet transmission, travels back those 100 miles, travels down a few feet of wire and is displayed on your screen. This, supposedly, takes 80 milliseconds.

Nothing from scenario 1 is missing from scenario 2. There are only additions (in bold), and those additions are, by far, the most time-consuming parts of the whole process. Anyone who knows anything about networking and/or video encoding can tell you that it's physically impossible for scenario 2 to be faster than scenario 1, and it's extremely unlikely that it could be anything less than several times longer.

 

[Version 3.0]

By my count, the amount of online multiplayer-enabled games outnumbers those without by about 3:2. I didn't count them all, but I counted at least 100.

Fair enough. My point still stands. Also: how many of those multiplayer-enabled games offer a single-player game comparable to the single-player only games? Most of them, I expect. XBL and OnLive are not remotely similar.

 

[Zachack]

Yes. It makes an incredibly watered down and inferior version of PC gaming available without requiring the initial time and monetary investment involved in procuring the relevant hardware. In the long run, its no cheaper (probably more expensive, even) but is undoubtedly more accessible and makes PC SKUs of games available to a completely different market. As such, I see it as a mostly positive thing, so long as they can deliver a "good enough" experience for the masses.

If it succeeds then what you'll get is a "good enough" experience for the PC Master Race. The console->PC-port tech bottleneck will increase in scope. Additionally (and this also goes for the notion of more Mac gamers being a benefit), given the already terrible QA abilities many B-range PC developers seem to have, the idea of both spreading their budgets out over more "platforms" AND providing them with an excuse to target closed-box systems could hurt QA on the open PC platform.

Metro 2033 comes to mind as a game that I would prefer to play on my decent PC but at the same time don't want to lose hours dealing with driver incompatibilities and who knows what else will be wrong so I'm attracted to a console experience.

 

[Pepto]

[scenario a] takes 100 milliseconds.

[scenario b], supposedly, takes 80 milliseconds.

Anyone who knows anything about networking and/or video encoding can tell you that it's physically impossible for scenario 2 to be faster than scenario 1, and it's extremely unlikely that it could be anything less than several times longer.

I still don't understand why scenario a would be faster with the times you provided.

 

[Fugu]

Fair enough. My point still stands. Also: how many of those multiplayer-enabled games offer a single-player game comparable to the single-player only games? Most of them, I expect. XBL and OnLive are not remotely similar.

They are similar in concept but very different in scope. Cancelling your XBL subscription prevents you from taking full advantage of products you already own; so does OnLive, but to a different degree.

 

[V-Gief]

I still don't understand why scenario a would be faster with the times you provided.

That is because the 100 milliseconds he used as a time frame for scenario A is just a example(or at least I hope so haha). If local play suffered 100 milliseconds of delay(of any kind), it would be nigh unplayable.

 

[Pepto]

That is because the 100 milliseconds he used as a time frame for scenario A is just a example(or at least I hope so haha). If local play suffered 100 milliseconds of delay(of any kind), it would be nigh unplayable.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-lag-factor-article?page=3

Few examples:
Street Fighter IV 67ms
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare 67ms-84ms
Grand Theft Auto IV 133ms-200ms

 

[V-Gief]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-lag-factor-article?page=3

Few examples:
Street Fighter IV 67ms
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare 67ms-84ms
Grand Theft Auto IV 133ms-200ms

If that number for SF4 is accurate for example(seems awfully high given how input sensitive the game is), you would have to add that number(since it is local play)on top of the 80ms(supposedly)response time for OnLive.

 

[Version 3.0]

They are similar in concept but very different in scope. Cancelling your XBL subscription might prevent you from taking full advantage of some products you already own; so does OnLive, but to a different degree.

They're not similar in concept. XBL is an optional addition to the traditional way of playing (and owning) games that's existed for 30 years. OnLive is a completely backwards system of doing the same thing, that costs a monthly fee forever.

And "to a different degree" is a pretty kind description of completely removing your access to your game library. "Similar to burning your house down" would be more accurate.

 

[Version 3.0]

I still don't understand why scenario a would be faster with the times you provided.

Well, thanks for reading anyway.

 

[Einbroch]

I still don't understand why scenario a would be faster with the times you provided.

Supposedly.

You're not reading.

 

[Shambles]

So it's basically console quality gaming, but with lag on top of that. 15/month, 180$/year is easily more expensive than buying any console. Since you have to buy the games separately why would anyone choose onlive over a console?

 

[Tellaerin]

OnLive needs to fail.

Even if it were somehow possible for the service to succeed on a technical level (which I still doubt; this clown seems to think his service can ignore the laws of physics if he technobabbles at them hard enough), any kind of success here just sets a bad precedent for consumers. Once I've paid for a game, I want to be able to play it when I want to, for as long as I want to, without additional subscription fees or external dependencies

The last thing I want is for the computer industry to start trending back towards the old mainframe/dumb terminal computing model. Between stuff like OnLive and all the hype for 'the cloud' lately ('Ooh, remote processing and storage are so wonderful! Your data's accessible everywhere, so you don't need local storage! Computers in the cloud will handle the heavy lifting, so you won't need a powerful CPU on your end anymore!', etc.), I'm afraid that's what things are headed back to: Remote processing centers running all the programs and handling data storage, with consumers limited to purchasing cable box-like remote terminals that are nothing more than a broadband hookup, I/O controller, and simple video board. Something that can be sold to you dirt cheap, or even provided free as part of a subscription service, but also completely useless without that service and subject to interruptions and lag issues because everything's being handled remotely. I think there are a lot of companies who would love to see a model like that to become the dominant one, for the greater control over content and guaranteed revenue streams it would provide, with personal computers as we know them today being sold in small numbers to a handful of hobbyist geeks who still want a 'real' computer in their own home, as they were in the late 70's and early 80's.

Do I really think a scenario like that will end up coming to pass? I don't know. I just know I'd rather not see it happen. I imagine companies are watching with interest to see whether or not this takes off, and if it does, they'll either sign on or follow suit themselves. So I'm hoping OnLive explodes on the launchpad, and that its failure convinces would-be imitators to focus their efforts on other things instead.

 

[Woo-Fu]

Doesn't make much sense to me.

A subscription fee and per game cost? Why not just lease a pc for a similar amount per month and not have to deal with every other gotcha OnLive adds to the mix?

About the only place I see this working is as a kiosk version in public places like airports.

 

[thetrin]

So it's basically console quality gaming, but with lag on top of that. 15/month, 180$/year is easily more expensive than buying any console. Since you have to buy the games separately why would anyone choose onlive over a console?

That's the mystery to me. I was totally on board as it being a casual PC gaming venue before I found out I had to pay for every game.

 

[Micromegas]

OnLive needs to fail.

You are wrong. The only thing it really needs to do is allow me to play Civ V with the graphics maxed-out on my iMac.

If it can do that, it has succeeded.

If the rest works, that's gravy.

 

[Tellaerin]

You are wrong. The only thing it really needs to do is allow me to play Civ V with the graphics maxed-out on my iMac.

If it can do that, it has succeeded.

If the rest works, that's gravy.

So satisfying your personal craving for Civilization V means more to you than the disadvantages we'll all be stuck with if subscription services like this ever become the dominant model for gaming. Good to see people bringing some perspective to the issue.

 

[Tashi]

I won't be trying it out.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

A great idea that falls flat on it's face.

Should have been like Gametap. Flat price, unlimited play.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

How in the world do you expect them to give games away for $15 a month? Use common sense.

You're renting. They're not giving away anything. Use common sense.

 

[ReyBrujo]

Tellaerin, like it or not, this is the way the industry is going. Don't you rent movies via Netflix without owning them? Don't you play World of Warcraft without owning your characters? Don't you buy games via Steam without owning the physical copies? Don't you buy songs via iTunes without owning the CDs? Don't you buy books via Amazon Kindle without owning the hardcover? What if Netflix goes down? What if Blizzard goes down? What if Steam goes down? What if Apple goes down? What if Amazon goes down?

Imagine this works like a Pay Per View. Don't people pay to see the WWE even though they already pay for cable?

Why do you think companies like Amazon and Google are investing so much in cloud computing (even in the healthcare industry where I work we are heading that way). The advantages for the programmers are incredible: I just need to focus on a single computer. I don't need to check anymore if I am in a 9x or in a NT, I don't need to check anymore if I am connected to Oracle or SQL Server, I don't need to check anymore if I have access to resources or if my services are running under a different user. Easily a quarter of the code I write is compatibility code (software supports from Windows NT up to Windows Seven, including Tablets PC and other touch screens that bring their own problems to the mixture). If I were to write code for a single platform, development costs would be much cheaper.

The advantages for publishers are huge. They don't need to add DRM anymore. They don't need activation stuff, they may fire half their customer support. If the game runs in the cloud, then you know it will run in every single user computer. No more piracy, instant usage statistics, updates at virtually no cost.

And for users, the advantages are pretty good too. No more computer pumping, true crossplatform gaming (play the game in your iPhone in the bus, pause, arrive home and continue playing on your TV via a OnLive client, for example), no more considering to crack the game because the DRM is so draconian you cannot install it in your new computer, or having to change your configurations or playing in low settings because your video card isn't enough. Just turn on the system and play, autosave anywhere, maybe even rewind back as if it were a movie to a previous point and replay the game from there, etc. OnLive won't support all these at the beginning, but the technology is still new.

One thing is to wish something to not happen. The music industry hoped nobody would notice MP3, and nowadays when you talk about music you talk about MP3s, not CDs. This will happen. However, there is the other thing: technologically, we are still not ahead enough in the curve. Connection speeds are still slow, broadband prices are still high, etc. But what you see here is _the_ future. It was for the music, it was for the movies, it was for the books, so why games would be different?

Remember the golden rule of business: money is everything. If there is a way to ensure you more money, pick it up. Why do you think Ubisoft went with that DRM? Why do you think Steam works that way? They like gamers? Bah, it is not that. That is the best way they find to prevent people from pirating games. The advantages they give are pretty good, so people don't care about not having the physical game with them. Same with iTunes, people don't own the CDs anymore, zero resale price, but the comfort of having your 100 CD collection in a single iPod overcomes everything. OnLive (or whatever the name of the next similar platform is) will, eventually, find the sweet spot where the features it offers weight more than the disadvantages. And I truly think, having lived 31 years, that I will be able to see that day.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

Compared to $8/month for Xbox Live Gold (1-month sub to 1-month sub) it's actually not bad for what you're getting.

Of course I'd wager that the overlap between people that complain about the price of Gold is going to be 98% of those who will complain about OnLive.

If they can provide an attractive all-you-can-eat cost.. it'll be sweet!

No one pays $8 a month for XBL.

 

[BuddhaRockstar]

Seems like they're targeting the wrong market. Sure there will be a small percentage who would rather pay the fees the the initially high fee for a PC or console, but why not capitalize on providing this service to those away from their consoles? Seems like they could partner with hotels, airlines (if it would work on a plane), cybercafes and other similar places. "Hey Johnny, you just had a long drive and got to your hotel, why not relax by signing in to your Xbox Live account via OnLive and playing some MW2?". I could definitely see a market for that over trying to sell it as an alternative to a console.

I haven't read into all this much, so maybe they are thinking about this already though.

 

[Slavik81]

I love the ridiculous double-standard. $15/month for WoW is ok, because Blizzard has servers to maintain, even if they still charge you for expansion packs. $15/month for this is a ridiculous price and totally untenable.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

I'm impressed that they'll have both PC and Mac clients ready by June 17.

That said, I still don't see this working. Bandwidth and latency will be at acceptable levels at some point in the future, but... yeah.

I'm not really sure. Can't change the laws of physics, my man.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

I love the ridiculous double-standard. $15/month for WoW is ok, because Blizzard has servers to maintain, even if they still charge you for expansion packs. $15/month for this is a ridiculous price and totally untenable.

Except with OnLive $15 doesn't even let you play a game.

 

[Slavik81]

Except with OnLive $15 doesn't even let you play a game.

WoW's subscription doesn't either. You need to buy a copy of the game too. Or at least, you did when it first launched (and the game was $60).

 

[vazel]

WoW's subscription doesn't either. You need to buy a copy of the game too. Or at least, you did when it first launched (and the game was $60).

When you buy a copy of the game it came with a free first month.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

But what you see here is _the_ future. It was for the music, it was for the movies, it was for the books, so why games would be different?

Your post was mostly apologetic bullshit, but I will say this: game are completely differently from movies, books, and music because they are required to give feedback to user inputs almost instantly. So for almost all genres (read, everything but turn-based games) then OnLive is going to be shit and constrained to the laws of physics.

 

[Slavik81]

When you buy a copy of the game it came with a free first month.

Which, when the game costs the same price as a monthly subscription, makes it even out. However, that's not the case. Generally, I think it's about $20 to the subscription's $15, so the game itself is $5. At launch, you'd have been paying $45 for the game itself.

Plus extra for expansions, of course.

 

[vazel]

MMOs always lower in price to $10-20. Some don't even make you pay the initial price anymore, you can download the game directly from the site and just pay subscription.

I don't see what comparison you're making. With OnLive you're paying $15 just for the opportunity to buy and then play games.

 

[benjipwns]

Yep. I'd pay 25-30 dollars a month for a gametap like scenario

Really? It'd have to have one hell of a library (plus lag free, etc.) since GameTap currently is $7 a month when you buy a full year.

Plus none of the issues GameTap has with publishers pulling their games and such.

Also, $25-30 a month will buy me a lot of games on Steam through the sales "permanently." Without any of the inherent OnLive issues.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

As simply as I can put it:

Local play: you press a button, the signal travels (at worst) across the room, gets processed, a new frame of video is output, travels down a few feet of wire and is displayed on your screen. This takes 100 milliseconds.

OnLive play: you press a button, the signal travels across the room, onto the internet, 100 miles through who knows how many routing changes, gets processed, a new frame of video is output, gets encoded for internet transmission, travels back those 100 miles, travels down a few feet of wire and is displayed on your screen. This, supposedly, takes 80 milliseconds.

Nothing from scenario 1 is missing from scenario 2. There are only additions (in bold), and those additions are, by far, the most time-consuming parts of the whole process. Anyone who knows anything about networking and/or video encoding can tell you that it's physically impossible for scenario 2 to be faster than scenario 1, and it's extremely unlikely that it could be anything less than several times longer.

I have no idea why people are claiming 100ms input lag for local gaming (to use your example). Do people honestly believe that input is sampled at 10hz?

 

[Slavik81]

MMOs always lower in price to $10-20. Some don't even make you pay the initial price anymore, you can download the game directly from the site and just pay subscription.

I don't see what comparison you're making. With OnLive you're paying $15 just for the opportunity to buy games.

Let's accept your case for the sake of argument. Over the course of 2 years, you're going to be spending $360 on subscriptions fees for either an MMO or Onlive.

The cost of the 'one game' difference between the two is going to be dwarfed by the subscription fees.

I don't think the argument "but it doesn't even let you play a game" holds water. The cost of buying a game does not make it significantly more expensive.

Pepto = OnLive employee, maybe the CEO

Anyway, let's instead talk about the viability of their business...

Scenario:

- OnLive gains.... 300k subscribers

How much does it cost them, per month, to run hardware which is capable of sustaining 300k instances of Crysis?

300k * 15 = 4.5 million then + royalties

Sustainable?

They're not going to have the infrastructure to have every single person using their service at the same time. That's the entire point of centralizing it like this. Otherwise, you might as well just mail each of your customers a computer.

Your power company can't supply enough power for all their users to max-out their power usage at the same time. Nor can your bank supply enough money for all depositors to withdraw their funds at the same time. Nor can your police department respond to every person in the city calling at the same time.

 

[seady]

So why do I want to pay an extra $15 to play games every month, instead of just buy the game in store?

If I want to play Crysis, I have to pay for the base cost of the game, and then $15 every month to access it?

This works for Xbox Live because there is no other option if you want to play those Xbox games online - so we are in some way being force to pay to play. But here we are accustomed to not having to pay to play, and this new player decided to just walk in and ask us to feed them with money every month?

If they are Valve/Steam and make their game exclusive to this service, it might work. But they are no Valve, why do I need to use their service?

 

[Slavik81]

So why do I want to pay an extra $15 to play games every month, instead of just buy the game in store?

If I want to play Crysis, I have to pay for the base cost of the game, and then $15 every month to access it?

This works for Xbox Live because there is no other option if you want to play those Xbox games online - so we are in some way being force to pay to play. But here we are accustomed to not having to pay to play, and this new player decided to just walk in and ask us to feed them with money every month?

If they are Valve/Steam and make their game exclusive to this service, it might work. But they are no Valve, why do I need to use their service?

So you can play Crysis on your netbook.
If you already own a gaming PC, this service is not for you.

 

[Shambles]

Quickly glancing at dell 25$/month will give you an i5 750 system with a 5450 which will likely look better than onLive and will leave you with a machine you own in the end. Just a thought

So you can play Crysis on your netbook.
If you already own a gaming PC, this service is not for you.

So if you have a gaming desktop and a netbook but you want to use onlive for when you have the netbook on the road you still have to pay them 15$/month plus pay twice for the game that you already own and have installed on your desktop. I believe most people were thinking the service would cost something like 15/month including the games, which would have been ok.

 

[Dogenzaka]

$15 per month?
Plus a pretty high broadband speed?
Plus game purchasing prices?

LOL count me out.

Should have been like Steam.

 

[ReyBrujo]

Your post was mostly apologetic bullshit, but I will say this: game are completely differently from movies, books, and music because they are required to give feedback to user inputs almost instantly. So for almost all genres (read, everything but turn-based games) then OnLive is going to be shit and constrained to the laws of physics.

Such a shrinked vision it is almost laughable. So, the "laws of physics" is now what "traditional" gamers are clinging up? Your argument would hold water if there were a single cloud somewhere, in that case the farther you are the more lag you would get until the game is completely unplayable. We agree there. But I doubt OnLive would do what you think they will do.

For example, my internet speed is 3MB. I wanted to contract 5MB, but they could not assure me that speed because my house is located too far from the distribution node. A year ago my speed was 1MB because I was too far from a distribution node to get 3MB. The next node will be built within the next three months, when I will be offered a 5MB connection via the new node. OnLive will be the same. There won't be a single cloud, there will be one. I am sure that, if they could, they would put several per state.

Don't be so close minded next time.

 

[Tellaerin]

Tellaerin, like it or not, this is the way the industry is going. Don't you rent movies via Netflix without owning them?

No, I don't use Netflix.

Don't you play World of Warcraft without owning your characters?

I do play MMO's, but not WOW. For the games I play, I feel the subscription fees are worth it for the content updates and the 'world' they're hosting, and having characters stored server-side means that people can't cheat by hacking their stats. Not 'owning' the data and having to pay a fee to play are acceptable tradeoffs in that case.

Don't you buy games via Steam without owning the physical copies?

Again, no. I don't use Steam. I buy games through GOG.com for PC, and PSN for consoles, but neither one forces me to authenticate online before I can play my games.

Don't you buy songs via iTunes without owning the CDs?

I don't buy songs via iTunes, period.

Don't you buy books via Amazon Kindle without owning the hardcover?

After reading this story, you couldn't get me to touch a Kindle with a ten-foot pole. I don't like the idea of a company being able to delete my purchases from the device they're on after I bought them, even if they do decide to give me a credit voucher for it.

What if Netflix goes down? What if Blizzard goes down? What if Steam goes down? What if Apple goes down? What if Amazon goes down?

And now you see why I don't use most of those services. I don't like being forced to rely on some outside service or provider if I don't have to be. Once I buy a book, a CD, or a game, I want to be able to use it when I want, for as long as I want. I don't want to have to worry about whether or not an authentication server somewhere is up, or if my net connection's down (like it was for a couple of days not long ago, during the severe northeastern snows in the US). Pay your money, then read, listen or play at will. Companies that let me do that receive my money. Those that don't, won't.

Imagine this works like a Pay Per View. Don't people pay to see the WWE even though they already pay for cable?

And that's fine, because PPV's only one option for content. You can always go out and buy a DVD if you want something more permanent. What I'm railing against here would be the equivalent of DVD players (and DVD's) being phased out, and movies only being available through a PPV service. Yes, I'd have a problem with that, too.

Why do you think companies like Amazon and Google are investing so much in cloud computing (even in the healthcare industry where I work we are heading that way). The advantages for the programmers are incredible: I just need to focus on a single computer. I don't need to check anymore if I am in a 9x or in a NT, I don't need to check anymore if I am connected to Oracle or SQL Server, I don't need to check anymore if I have access to resources or if my services are running under a different user. Easily a quarter of the code I write is compatibility code (software supports from Windows NT up to Windows Seven, including Tablets PC and other touch screens that bring their own problems to the mixture). If I were to write code for a single platform, development costs would be much cheaper.

The advantages for publishers are huge. They don't need to add DRM anymore. They don't need activation stuff, they may fire half their customer support. If the game runs in the cloud, then you know it will run in every single user computer. No more piracy, instant usage statistics, updates at virtually no cost.

And for users, the advantages are pretty good too. No more computer pumping, true crossplatform gaming (play the game in your iPhone in the bus, pause, arrive home and continue playing on your TV via a OnLive client, for example), no more considering to crack the game because the DRM is so draconian you cannot install it in your new computer, or having to change your configurations or playing in low settings because your video card isn't enough. Just turn on the system and play, autosave anywhere, maybe even rewind back as if it were a movie to a previous point and replay the game from there, etc. OnLive won't support all these at the beginning, but the technology is still new.

Any potential advantage to the user is outweighed by the disadvantages: Being forced to depend on hardware that you don't own and have no control over in order to play the games you bought. With a setup like this, you pay your money (and pay, and pay, and pay - it's 'software as a service'), but you own nothing. And yes, I've heard the arguments that you don't technically 'own' the games you buy anyway because of the EULA, but regardless of the legalities, for all intents in purposes the disc you bought is yours. Put it in your PC or console and play, no extra fees or authentication nonsense required. That's what they're angling to take from consumers.

It's all about control, and publishers seem to be hell-bent on taking away as much control from the user as they possibly can.

One thing is to wish something to not happen. The music industry hoped nobody would notice MP3, and nowadays when you talk about music you talk about MP3s, not CDs. This will happen. However, there is the other thing: technologically, we are still not ahead enough in the curve. Connection speeds are still slow, broadband prices are still high, etc. But what you see here is _the_ future. It was for the music, it was for the movies, it was for the books, so why games would be different?

I don't think a streaming service like this is ever going to be 'the future', due more to the limitations of physics than anything. As for 'software as a service', it's an idea that's reared its ugly head a number of times over the years, but so far it hasn't gained traction, and for good reason. I hope that it never does, but we'll see. I don't think the answer is to take the attitude, 'they're going to screw us no matter what we do, so we may as well go along with it' and accept whatever companies decide to do without a peep of protest, though.

Remember the golden rule of business: money is everything. If there is a way to ensure you more money, pick it up. Why do you think Ubisoft went with that DRM? Why do you think Steam works that way? They like gamers? Bah, it is not that. That is the best way they find to prevent people from pirating games. The advantages they give are pretty good, so people don't care about not having the physical game with them. Same with iTunes, people don't own the CDs anymore, zero resale price, but the comfort of having your 100 CD collection in a single iPod overcomes everything. OnLive (or whatever the name of the next similar platform is) will, eventually, find the sweet spot where the features it offers weight more than the disadvantages. And I truly think, having lived 31 years, that I will be able to see that day.

People can keep trying, but as long as they're going to push 'software as a service' subscription-based models where the end user doesn't actually own anything, and is denied access to their entire game library if they don't pay a monthly fee, then they deserve to fail miserably.

 

[K.Jack]

They're not going to have the infrastructure to have every single person using their service at the same time. That's the entire point of centralizing it like this. Otherwise, you might as well just mail each of your customers a computer.

Your power company can't supply enough power for all their users to max-out their power usage at the same time. Nor can your bank supply enough money for all depositors to withdraw their funds at the same time. Nor can your police department respond to every person in the city calling at the same time.

So for how many concurrent instances will they need to be prepped?

 

[Dogenzaka]

It's funny because, if I only buy 1 game, I have to pay $15 for the rest of my life to keep "ownership" of that title.

What a crock of shit.

OMFG YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH NOSTALGIA YOU JUST AWAKENED FROM WITHIN ME AFTER 13 YEARS.

*sucks thumb*

Sega Channel....you were ripped from me so...so suddenly...

*rocks in fetal position*

 

[Vandiger]

Good luck with this, fail at launch.

 

[evangd007]

So what we have here is a service that isn't very much cheaper than getting a gaming-capable PC if you subscribe for a couple of years. Nevermind the fact that you must buy the games from OnLive, missing out on newegg, amazon, direct2drive, and steam deals. Even if OnLive has deals it will never have as many deals, nor as wide a variety of deals.

You need a 5 mbps internet connection to game in HD, which is all that is available . You won't be getting that out of a netbook's wireless card. You won't even get that with many wired connections. Such a connection is in fact rather costly, adding even more expense. When we have threads on GAF detailing how to make rather robust gaming-capable PCs for under $500, OnLive looks even worse in comparison.

And that doesn't even get into the concept of ownership. There are good reasons why the Zune hasn't been able to take off, that is one of them.

 

[ReyBrujo]

People can keep trying, but as long as they're going to push 'software as a service' subscription-based models where the end user doesn't actually own anything, and is denied access to their entire game library if they don't pay a monthly fee, then they deserve to fail miserably.

Thanks for your constructive feedback. I must do a disclaimer (to prevent people from thinking I like this model): I live in Argentina, and if this catches up, it will take years for it to come here, it will develop extremely slowly, and we will likely continue to play FFXII while you are playing FFXXV.

This model is not one I like. I love having my anime series in DVDs, my Dragonlance collection in books, my symphonic metal music in CDs, my games in a stand next to me, etc. However, this is the one that makes sense for the developers, the publishers, and an unknown amount of users. There is a reason iTunes is so successful. I prefer having the CD, over 70m (or more, not sure how many iPods/iPhones have been sold) prefer buying individual songs and dismisses physical media. And if Apple can still exhort huge discographies to accept whatever they are taking for every 0.99c sale, I am guessing it is a pretty huge base for them.

We are driving gas-fueled cars because it makes sense for companies to continue supporting it. If tomorrow all cars become electrical or solar it is not because the companies decided it is the best for the end user, but because they found a way to make electric motors cheaper than explosion ones. No matter the industry, it always work in the same way.

I am not sure if they deserve to fail. I am sure it will not be a complete success, but the pioneer doesn't need to be, it just need to mark the path for others to walk.

I don't think a streaming service like this is ever going to be 'the future', due more to the limitations of physics than anything

Read a bit above for a previous reply of mine to another neogaffer. You don't need to break the laws of physics, you just need to maximize them. Just like there is a phone central every 5-10kms, there can be a OnLive cloud every, say, 500 or 1000kms. It may not even need to be from the same company, after all this is just a cloud, so you could have an Activision cloud 200 kms to the north and an Electronic Arts 300 kms to the south.

 

[mr stroke]

Why are so many up in arms about the $15 a month? people do this with there cable TV bills every month

$40 for Direct TV service(mostly basic channels which you can get for free over the air)
$10 for HD
$15 for HBO

+ extra for PPV, NFL ticket, etc....



I would be all for a service like this IF it was able to play games maxed out at 1080p with zero lag(so I guess I won't be joining)


Onlive makes sense IMO, just not yet. Internet speeds and technology aren't there yet.

 

[DarkestFiber]

Why are so many up in arms about the $15 a month? people do this with there cable TV bills every month

Because it's $15/month + the cost of buying/renting any games you want to play. I think most people (including me) were thinking it would be one monthly fee with access to any game available on the service (like Netflix).

 

[kamspy]

So can you just buy a 7 day license for a game? If so, how much? Is it the entire game or just a longer demo?

I'm halfway interested in it as a rental prospect, if the best of the claims are true. People talking about lag ITT are funny. There must be more CRT gaffers than I thought. ;]


I've always wanted to be able to rent PC games. And no, don't PM me random guy. I don't want to "rent" them that way. I love Gametap, and if they could make that thing instant with a similar sized library, I'd give it a good long look. Never understood why Gametap didn't take off on GAF. Do you people realize what you can get for $9/mo?

 

[brain_stew]

So you can play Crysis on your netbook.
If you already own a gaming PC, this service is not for you.

Well since this service requires perfect decoding of a (likely h.264) HD video stream at better than real time speed, then your Netbook probably isn't going to be any use for Onlive either. Unless you plan to play Crysis at 640x480 :lol