Originally posted by Gameloading

Threatens console gaming?  Actually this is a threat to PC gaming, not console gaming.

OnLIVE the exact same thing as a console, it's just transfered entirely over the internet.

For a console user, this will change absolutely nothing. The only thing that changes is that they never have to buy new hardware again and they now get content streamed to them as opposed to a disk.

However PC gamers will now lose a lot of things that set PC gaming apart from consoles. How ironic that after years of accusing console systems trying to be PC, it's now the PC industry becoming fully consolized and the best part of it is that PC gamers are cheering for it.

So what does this means for PC gamers?

- You  won't be able to use user created mods. There is no way OnLIVE is going to let you access their secured servers with your own modded content.

- You will no longer be able to increase your system to get the best results, and apparently resolution is capped at 720p.

It's pretty funny that the future of PC gaming is an online version of the console business.

that is, if this thing is going to work in the first place.

If it works, it will be the best thing happening to gaming. And if new tech is going to replace old, so be it. I don't think we need to be PC gamers. We are gamers. If PC does not offer enough value, we move somewhere else.

I don't think mod will be an issue. 99% of the user created content is crap anyway. Of all the mods i have played, may be a few is even worth the time of the download and ALL are inferior to professionally created content. There are SO MANY games out there that I have a problem playing all the games I want. I won't have time to miss the MODs.

In the interview, the guy said that the resolution will be 1280x800 .. essentially HD. That is good enough. Stuff looks GREAT on my PC monitor at that resolution and great on my HD tv. I don't see a big issue of not being able to have a even higher resolution. 

Furthermore, we don't have to do a THING when the quality of the graphics (3D rendering and stuff) will upgrade automatically when their server are upgraded. This beat BOTH the PC and console at it stands.

And there will be no issue of controls. I can still use all my PC controls (mouse + keyboard) and I don't have to worry about folders, where my save games are, and crap like that. Currently whenever i play a PC game, I always have to tweak the video setting (the automatic thing is NEVER right) and it is a pain in the ass. This will make everything more convenient.

I have 4 laptops and 1 desktop at home. Only ONE is powerful enough to play modern 3D games. This will allow ALL my machines to be able to play.

Aside from bandwidth needs, if this works, I don't see a downside and I would be HAPPILY switching from PC/console to this.

Originally posted by Reklaw

Originally posted by Abrahmm

Originally posted by Reklaw

Originally posted by horrid

Can't see this working very well unless you have AMAZING ping times.  Every single action you take will be subject to lag.  One of the biggest issues they have with VR and head tracking is that the slight lag between turning your head and software picking up the movement causes very bad motion sickness.  You will have this type of lag for every single action you take. 

 

The other issue is that lag is additive.  Your lag to onlive + onlive lag to game server.  I would rather play with lower graphics settings than be subject all the layers of lag.  More so as I am an aussie and am lucky get get below 300ms to any US servers.

 

 

It's better if you FIRST read or listen to the interview about Onlive before making replies or comments about lag ......

Here > http://www.gametrailers.com/player/47080.html interview part 1

Here > http://www.gametrailers.com/player/47082.html interview part 2

;)

 

What is your point? I watched the videos, and lag is still a valid issue. Just because the marketer for the product says lag won't be an issue doesn't mean it won't be an issue.

 

Morning Ab, my point, read before replying, simple as that, did I say lag will not be a issue, no I did not, I just said it's better to listen/watch the interviews before commenting on lag, try and think alittle outside the box.......but don't worry thinking outside the box isn't the strenght of this forum for the most part, seeing issue''s before a product is released is much more in line with this forum I know..........

I agree, but there is a difference between thinking outside the box and thinking realistically. It is an interesting idea that I think some people could be interested in(not me personally, but someone). But realistically speaking, with the current broadband infrastructure in the U.S., I can't see this working well unless you are practically sitting on the server or have a god like connection. It would be like streaming a video with absolutely NO buffering, and having that video be completely dependent on real time input from you. With the current broadband available in the U.S., I don't see that as realistic.

I could be wrong, and they could have some mega awesome new technology that fixes everything, but from what we know today, we can only speculate, and the speculation points to this not working great. I'm not going to sugar-coat and be positive just for the sake of being positive.

Originally posted by Abrahmm

Originally posted by Reklaw

Originally posted by Abrahmm

Originally posted by Reklaw

Originally posted by horrid

Can't see this working very well unless you have AMAZING ping times.  Every single action you take will be subject to lag.  One of the biggest issues they have with VR and head tracking is that the slight lag between turning your head and software picking up the movement causes very bad motion sickness.  You will have this type of lag for every single action you take. 

 

The other issue is that lag is additive.  Your lag to onlive + onlive lag to game server.  I would rather play with lower graphics settings than be subject all the layers of lag.  More so as I am an aussie and am lucky get get below 300ms to any US servers.

 

 

It's better if you FIRST read or listen to the interview about Onlive before making replies or comments about lag ......

Here > http://www.gametrailers.com/player/47080.html interview part 1

Here > http://www.gametrailers.com/player/47082.html interview part 2

;)

 

What is your point? I watched the videos, and lag is still a valid issue. Just because the marketer for the product says lag won't be an issue doesn't mean it won't be an issue.

 

Morning Ab, my point, read before replying, simple as that, did I say lag will not be a issue, no I did not, I just said it's better to listen/watch the interviews before commenting on lag, try and think alittle outside the box.......but don't worry thinking outside the box isn't the strenght of this forum for the most part, seeing issue''s before a product is released is much more in line with this forum I know..........

I agree, but there is a difference between thinking outside the box and thinking realistically. It is an interesting idea that I think some people could be interested in(not me personally, but someone). But realistically speaking, with the current broadband infrastructure in the U.S., I can't see this working well unless you are practically sitting on the server or have a god like connection. It would be like streaming a video with absolutely NO buffering, and having that video be completely dependent on real time input from you. With the current broadband available in the U.S., I don't see that as realistic.

I could be wrong, and they could have some mega awesome new technology that fixes everything, but from what we know today, we can only speculate, and the speculation points to this not working great. I'm not going to sugar-coat and be positive just for the sake of being positive.

Highlighter red is obvious as of course it will not work well with current bb-infrastructure, but this is not a project for the current, they are still working on it, just take a look at where your country will be heading the next couple of years Study calls for 1 Gbps Internet nationwide by 2015 

The harshest form of DRM ever created and some of you think it's a good thing? To no longer own games is a good thing?

You won't think this way when they start shutting down old classics that you can't play anymore because you don't own the disk. You won't think this way when your internet company starts charing you per bandwidth use.

Or how about when to government gets involved and decides you can only play 4 hours a day.

This is great for game companies, very very bad for gamers.

 This is fun technology, but anyone that thinks this is going to replace the PC that runs games like crysis at 1920 resolution needs their head examined.

No way will a 720 max res setup ever replace a true gaming pc.

Still, if it works, this a a great idea for a service for the console community. Just imagine this service with a PDA device. All these games anywhere would be fun.

Just one more corporatized, homogenous, socialist "paradise" where disparate thought and ideologies are never free to surface, let alone thrive. Once gaming moves off independent PCs to a populace suckling digitized mother's milk from Onlive's teet only "approved" developers and content will be allowed to the "hundreds of millions" of potential users who will now have access to, and be spoiled by,  gpu lvl supercomputing because they are essentially dummy terminals on OnLive's mainframe.  Get out of line and be banished to the gaming dark ages.  Even if they allow independent game developers entry into the Onlive marketplace, if you make content that has a message or theme which is considered unacceptable BY THEM AND THEIR CORPORATE PARTNERS for any number of reasons, you, your game and your subscriberbase disappear at the flick of a switch. Gaming globalism in its earliest form. Orwellian.

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by DeserttFoxx

This thing sounds pretty gay...

 

I happen to enjoy upgrading my computer, i also enjoy sitting at my desk, ive no interest in playing games on my tv, my tv is trash compared to my pc set.

 

This thhing seems like excess garbage, illl stick to my pc. As long as devs dont get the bright idea to try and make this crap mainstreem then i dont care, it seems like gametap to me.

 

Im going to pay a premium sub fee, plus  pay for the games just to play them on my tv, ill pass.

 

My internet company already hates me, i use 900gb+ of bandwith a month, pissed off they cant charge their stupid bandith fees, its not like ISP are prepared for a system like this.

 

And btw.. the pirates never lose. This wont do anything to stop piriating, that comment made me laugh.

eh you don't have to play it on your TV if you don't want to. You can just play it on your PC as well, all you have to do is download a small plugin and you're good to go.
 

You missed my point.

I have a good computer.. wait no, i have a GREAT computer. Ive been waiting for a game to fucking push my computer, not reasons to stop using it.

When the graphic god Crysis came out, i played that game fully maxed out with no lag without breaking a sweat(worst fps game ever btw Korean miltary to aliens, come on now..) And since crysis, absolutly nothing has made my computer so much as hiccup.

I have, 3 , 750gig hard drives, and 2, 20' HD monitors ( 20 inches beause i sit at my desk and i rather like my eye sight) I dont, need to stream my games, and i sure as hell dont need to play them on my tv.

If more people took the time to invest in their computers theyd realize that a computer is worth keeping up to speed in the long run. My computer has survived the console generation switch and its still better then my xbox and ps3.

And not to mention, the biggest problem with this thing yet. The fact that i will no longer own the damn game. Do you think i have that much space because i like to delete games after im finished with them? I still have Diablo 2 installed. What happesn when devs decide to take off their 3 year old classic, because they dont feel like paying whatever Onlive premium they have to pay to keep it going, so they can make room for their new title. How can anyone actually think this is a step up for gaming.

A step up for gaming is Installing games onto the harddrive.

A step up for gaming is cross platform multiplayer.

A step up is playermade content on the console.

This shit is 3 steps and a hop backwards. Next they will announce playing games on the fucking browsers for a premium as an advancement.

Remote computing vs Cloud Computing

I think what people are exciting about is the remote computing possibilities. But you don't need cloud computing for remote computing.

People already play WoW on their iphone using macs remote desktop. I have my own web apps set up on my own server that I can use on any platform anywhere in the world.

This is just yet another service to take monthly fees, and you don't end up owning the games. Single players games over the Internet, with buffering, stuttering and lag, that they can discontinue at any time, oh joy. Sorry this is for suckers. Reminds me of the people that play “free” MMOs and end up spending more with item shops.

You really want to be at the mercy of internet companies and phone companies just to play a game? Granted we are for multilayer games, but having this for single player games is a step back as far as I'm concerned.

Remember – you can do remote computing without cloud computing.

Give it time and some linux geeks with have an open source version of this so you can setup your own server. Then you and your friends can do remote gaming, with your own games without giving someone yet another fee.

When I saw this earlier, I thought it looked great on paper. Kind of like a lot of ideas. However, there are 2 main obstacles. Most of the U.S. is not hooked up to fiber optics yet, and still rely on copper cables. Secondly this will ultimately be shut down by the likes of Cox/ Comcast/ other isp's. It is no secret that providers are having issues with large bandwidth users clogging the streams. They will inverably shut down OnLive for this very reason.

Originally posted by GreenChaos

Remote computing vs Cloud Computing

I think what people are exciting about is the remote computing possibilities. But you don't need cloud computing for remote computing.

People already play WoW on their iphone using macs remote desktop. I have my own web apps set up on my own server that I can use on any platform anywhere in the world.

This is just yet another service to take monthly fees, and you don't end up owning the games. Single players games over the Internet, with buffering, stuttering and lag, that they can discontinue at any time, oh joy. Sorry this is for suckers. Reminds me of the people that play “free” MMOs and end up spending more with item shops.

You really want to be at the mercy of internet companies and phone companies just to play a game? Granted we are for multilayer games, but having this for single player games is a step back as far as I'm concerned.

Remember – you can do remote computing without cloud computing.

Give it time and some linux geeks with have an open source version of this so you can setup your own server. Then you and your friends can do remote gaming, with your own games without giving someone yet another fee.

it's really interesting that you bring  up Linux geeks becuase, as it just so happens, there is already a way to do remote gaming that isn't as bandwidth intenisive as streaming the content frame by frame: OpenGL.

Most people don't know this, but OpenGL was designed with a networked environment in mind. The idea is that the video card would be treated like any other networked device and the app would simply send the appropriate function calls to an OpenGL graphics card that was somewhere on the network. For most linux machines, the graphics card is local, but to Linux it's all the same. I'm not quite sure if DirectX is set up like this also or not. I know that OpenAL is the same way though.

The bottom line is that they could have just put a Geforce 8800, a sound card, a network card and a bluetooth adapter on one card and been able to do the exact same thing with way less lag. They could still do something like this via software with a full blown computer that has a graphics card in it. Of course, that would have chained the performance of the service to the hardware on the users end and they didn't want that.

I'd definitely be looking for something very much like what I just described be available in FOSS form for your desktop sometime in the next couple of years. Expect it on Windows if someone figures out a way to send DirectX commands over the internet rather than through Express PCI bus.

Originally posted by DeserttFoxx

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by DeserttFoxx

This thing sounds pretty gay...

 

I happen to enjoy upgrading my computer, i also enjoy sitting at my desk, ive no interest in playing games on my tv, my tv is trash compared to my pc set.

 

This thhing seems like excess garbage, illl stick to my pc. As long as devs dont get the bright idea to try and make this crap mainstreem then i dont care, it seems like gametap to me.

 

Im going to pay a premium sub fee, plus  pay for the games just to play them on my tv, ill pass.

 

My internet company already hates me, i use 900gb+ of bandwith a month, pissed off they cant charge their stupid bandith fees, its not like ISP are prepared for a system like this.

 

And btw.. the pirates never lose. This wont do anything to stop piriating, that comment made me laugh.

eh you don't have to play it on your TV if you don't want to. You can just play it on your PC as well, all you have to do is download a small plugin and you're good to go.
 

You missed my point.

 

I have a good computer.. wait no, i have a GREAT computer. Ive been waiting for a game to fucking push my computer, not reasons to stop using it.

When the graphic god Crysis came out, i played that game fully maxed out with no lag without breaking a sweat(worst fps game ever btw Korean miltary to aliens, come on now..) And since crysis, absolutly nothing has made my computer so much as hiccup.

 

I have, 3 , 750gig hard drives, and 2, 20' HD monitors ( 20 inches beause i sit at my desk and i rather like my eye sight) I dont, need to stream my games, and i sure as hell dont need to play them on my tv.

 

If more people took the time to invest in their computers theyd realize that a computer is worth keeping up to speed in the long run. My computer has survived the console generation switch and its still better then my xbox and ps3.

 

And not to mention, the biggest problem with this thing yet. The fact that i will no longer own the damn game. Do you think i have that much space because i like to delete games after im finished with them? I still have Diablo 2 installed. What happesn when devs decide to take off their 3 year old classic, because they dont feel like paying whatever Onlive premium they have to pay to keep it going, so they can make room for their new title. How can anyone actually think this is a step up for gaming.

A step up for gaming is Installing games onto the harddrive.

A step up for gaming is cross platform multiplayer.

A step up is playermade content on the console.

This shit is 3 steps and a hop backwards. Next they will announce playing games on the fucking browsers for a premium as an advancement.

My comment was regarding your point that you'd rather sit behind your desk instead of the TV. You can still do this with OnLive.
 

Your computer can run everything out there...for now. But it probably won't run everything in 5 years, and will run close to nothing in 10 years unless you throw hundreds of dollars at your PC just to run it.

OnLive removes all of that, you never have to upgrade ever again, and for many people this is a great solution.

However, the best part of OnLive is this:

Imagine for a second that OnLive becomes a huge success. Nobody buys games on PC anymore, nobody buys consoles from Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony anymore, we're all using a service such as OnLive or something similar to that.

The one thing thats holding games back is underpowered systems. Developers can't make the most out of game development because of medium end computers, and consoles only update every 7 years or so. Developers can now go all out because everybody makes use of tricked out high end computers to play their games. According to the GDC presentation (I posted it in the off - topic section, should be page 2 or so), it can run games that are actually not possible on home computers yet.
 

Now ofcourse I'm jumping way ahead here, since we're not even sure if this works the way it is advertised, but the potential is certainly there. If you like upgrading your computer all the time to run the latest games, then this service really doesn't have that much to offer for you, but you're not really the target audience. This is really a system designed for people who can't or don't want to upgrade a PC or buy a new console every few years.

Thats why OnLive is such a huge step forward if it becomes the new norm.

You can actually already do this with a PS3 and a PSP. Remote play it's called.  Put the game in on the PS3, then with your PSP connected to the internet, you can play it while not at home

The trouble with it is lag. Doesn't work very well for most action games. And why this probably won't work.

Trance, the main difference being your house with a gimmick VS a giant super computer built specifically to address this situations, with ludicrious amounts of investments backing it.

Originally posted by Kainis

When I saw this earlier, I thought it looked great on paper. Kind of like a lot of ideas. However, there are 2 main obstacles. Most of the U.S. is not hooked up to fiber optics yet, and still rely on copper cables. Secondly this will ultimately be shut down by the likes of Cox/ Comcast/ other isp's. It is no secret that providers are having issues with large bandwidth users clogging the streams. They will inverably shut down OnLive for this very reason.

The whole system is a high speed vcr recording and playing back gameplay faster than the human eye can comprehend. It requires a 1.2Mbs connection to generate standard broadcast tv resolution, much less than the 100Mbps capability of fiber. Also these jokers are already cutting deals with isps. They, like all these out of nowhere but already entrenched services, are a construct of the same powers that control the system seeking to increase their reach and tighten their stranglehold on ideaologies and entertainment.

Originally posted by slask777

3. If you think DRM is bad, this is the ultimate DRM

QFT. We'll never be able to touch our game's data. :(

Not to mention that if they want to expand, they'll have to build more of their million-dollar servers...

If you ask me, this is some sort of clever ploy to convince people to upgrade their internet so they can keep up with the OL system.

Sounds cool, almost too good to be true, but it sounds great on paper.

If this was an MMO, this would be a carebear MMO. It seems to be for casual gamers who just want to play games.

I like how the guy said how it'd be additive to standard PC game/market system, not a replacement.

Go ONLIVE!

Damn, looks like the wave of the future if having everything we do processed by some server half way across the country.

I personally don't like it but for those of you saying it's some fad and it won't succeed might be very very wrong.  LIke the video said, it scales down according to the strength of your internet connection.  I'm sure that upon relase the gram will stream without much interferance.

This is just going to be a wait and see type of thing.  I like physically owning data that I purchase as well.  Just having access to it through the internet kind of turns me off but I'm sure you could also take your little box around and having access to everything you have purchased from any place that has the internet. 

I think that most of us old schoolers will have a problem with it but the sort of casual gamers will have no problem streaming all there content. 

I begin to understand more and more why we do not see innovative things within games, to many people are afraid of change or different, really never thought that people into games would be so narrowminded when I read most of the replies here talking about issues like lag/bandwidth, no more boxes, DRM I mean seriously never would have thought there would be a day that people into games would react like that..

I geuss more options also scares allot of people on this forum.

I just finished reading this from start to finish and I want to thank everyone who took the time to express there concerns. I hadn't thought of half of those many many problems for the user/average person down the line. I hope you can take some comfort knowing that I may have actually jumped onboard before reading this but wouldn't touch it now. So thanks, also I feel if you've read everyones concerns and aren't a little concerned than your nuts.

As for the potential benefits that a one platform gaming machine may have I think it'd be outweighed by the potential of damage to smaller developer companies and indy companies and really, gaming will still move forward and theres bigger possible backlashes from this.

Anyway thanks again.

Originally posted by ozmono

I just finished reading this from start to finish and I want to thank everyone who took the time to express there concerns. I hadn't thought of half of those many many problems for the user/average person down the line. I hope you can take some comfort knowing that I may have actually jumped onboard before reading this but wouldn't touch it now. So thanks, also I feel if you've read everyones concerns and aren't a little concerned than your nuts.

As for the potential benefits that a one platform gaming machine may have I think it'd be outweighed by the potential of damage to smaller developer companies and indy companies and really, gaming will still move forward and theres bigger possible backlashes from this.

Anyway thanks again.

I don't think it would hurt small software/gaming development companies at all.  The games will most likely still cost the same, the only real threat this would bring would be on the hardware market.

The more I think about it the more I think it will just be something that casual gamers will get.  I am sure the bo to plug into your tv will be really inexpensive. 

I just don't see this being a console killer.

It'll fail they gonna have to many opponents. And i rlyl ike to make my own pcs and upgrade it often then have only 1 option.

Its an interesting concept, and done right should fly well.Of course, when was the last time something was done right ...... :P

Ive never understood consoles,and havent bought one since circa the 70's.I mean think about them...Basically they are small medium powered computers with self-imposed use limits.They are usually sold at a lose per unit, with the plan to make money on software sales-software that they then limit to only be usable by a particular system.

The games themselves are more often than not, basically quality wise ,just pc games given a partial lobotomy.As if the average PC game needed to be even simpler or dumbed down even more :(

It seems to me,that consoles were their own worst enemies up til now.

This OnLive system,could easily eat up a large share of console dollars* and take that top enemy slot for itself.In addition it could capture a medium share of PC dollars* (*money spent by customers on said products and software).

Again, it will have to be done right though.The laggy,"this game is not available","because you dont own the game but only really rent it,and thus can only play it when we are functioning" system of services like steam are NOT gonna cut it.

This "new" system,whatever it is,is gonna have to do much better than we are used too.

If it does, it will be successful and consoles will become an even harder sell ,with even less profit available to be made from them .

So console death ? Unlikely.Another nail ? if done right, yes.

Originally posted by Swiftblade13

if this works as advertised... and if they can get resolutions as high as a real gaming pc with future improvements in internet connection speeds........    this could pretty much kill off the PC gaming hardware market..  It would be interesting to see the long term repercussions.

 

As it is this is fantastic for people who cant afford or dont want to invest in a gaming PC...   It would be awesome to be able to play high end titles with friends that have an emachine.

 

 

I don't think it will kill off the PC hardware market. I have a sweet computer already and can play any game out there already so why would I need to use Onlive?

But there will be people that don't have nice computers that will use Onlive. 

Also will they have MMORPG's on their service if not  you still need to buy hardware to keep up with those games, and other games that might not be on their service.

I really like the concept of this, but is has some serious pros/cons to consider.

This could kill certain retailers and system maker for example, but it opens the market for game producers to make games for larger audiences by combining console/pc/mac/everything.

I'm not a big fan of paying another subscription fee and then buying titles which might become unaccessable if the service is cancelled.  If it was some sort of all inclusive rate for every game they offer sign me up.  Maybe if the games were at a discount compared to retail prices to offest their loss if you unsubscribe. 

Then again, being able to see a game in action might be worth it just to save money wasted on games that have better box cover art than actual gameplay. 

 Here's why this will fail:  We won't buy into it.  Gamers will go so far as to buy a wired mouse over a wireless mouse because of the perceived delay in reaction time.  Any perceived delay and gamers are going to avoid it like the plague.

Yes, this idea will probably take hold in the casual games market, but the real games will be played as they are now, for a long time coming.