OnLive: Online Server-Based PC Console

[True_Avery]

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6206623/index.html?tag=topslot;img;2

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6206620.html?tag=latestheadlines;title;1

 

Basically, instead of using your own system or console to run a game the company has powerful computers elsewhere that run them for you. What you play is a live stream being controlled by your controller via the connection.

 

Which means that this is a PC Online Server console. You'll need an internet connection to play, but the upside is it should theoretically work with any computer rig including macs, xp, and vista regardless of gear.

 

This is the entire console:

 

Think YouTube on ultra steroids, but you control what is going on in the video.

 

The upsides and downsides are obvious here. You'll need an internet connection, and probably a damn good one. What if the computer you are plaything through crashes? Gitches? Well, there is no way to interact with the computer other than through the game so I can only assume you'd be screwed.

 

No idea how this will come together, but the idea has been around for awhile and its nice to see someone attempting to do something with it. It is currently in closed beta.

 

Thoughts?

[jrrtoken]

I think it's going to end up like the Virtual Boy, or the Gizmondo.

 

IMO, this thing looks like another attempt at console-izing the PC. It seems that you'll never really own game, but just an eternal renting policy, with a subscription. Sounds really diabolical, even more dastardly than any sort of DRM that EA provides.

[True_Avery]

I think it's going to end up like the Virtual Boy, or the Gizmondo.

 

IMO, this thing looks like another attempt at console-izing the PC. It seems that you'll never really own game, but just an eternal renting policy, with a subscription. Sounds really diabolical, even more dastardly than any sort of DRM that EA provides.

Personally, I'm the opposite. I think charging anywhere from $50 to $125 for a single PC game is hefty, not counting the added cost of hardware upgrades.

 

As someone who prefers to rent/borrow games over buying them, I don't have much of a problem with not owning them. The only games I'll ever buy are games I know I will want to play in 10 years.

 

From the way it is described, you sign up for a subscription and you get access to the game library with every game available to play. This may not be the case, but it is the impression I got. If that is so, then unless the subscription fee is unreasonable the deal doesn't sound that bad.

 

This is, however, not taking into account that these games will rely solely on internet connection and being hosted by an outside source. As someone who has a fantastic internet connection I am fine with it. I imagine that, especially for those outside the US, the connection would be a problem.

 

Brilliant idea I think, but the execution could go wrong in so many ways.

[Jeff]

See I am the opposite of that Avery as I like owning my games. I only trade in the ones I absolutely know that I will never touch again, and only if I get relatively good value for them. That said I still think this is a cool idea, but I just dunno if it will take off. Definitely will not be as common as home consoles.

[Mav]

I would love this for PC gaming if it is responsive enough, because it costs a ridiculous amount of money for a great gaming rig. However I like to have a tangible game in my hands when I make a purchase, so yea. Also, why the **** would they go with that horrible excuse of a D-pad on that promotional game controller. Oh also I remember reading an article about the internet speed requirements, I think it was on IGN if I find it, I'll link it.

 

Edit: "Obviously, a fast internet connection is required on your end to stream the gameplay video. A 1.5 mbps connection (which is usually what base-level DSL is rated at) is required for standard-definition video (480p), while a 5.0 mbps connection is required for HD (720p). The actual necessary speed is a tad less than advertised, so as long as your provider says you have these speeds, you should be OK. "

 

Link: http://pc.ign.com/articles/965/965535p1.html

[True_Avery]

I would love this for PC gaming if it is responsive enough, because it costs a ridiculous amount of money for a great gaming rig. However I like to have a tangible game in my hands when I make a purchase, so yea.

Yeah, that seems to be the main down side. It isn't in your hands.

 

Even so, for some of these games I'd rather play them then look at them at the store and say "There is no way my computer would run that".

 

Also, why the **** would they go with that horrible excuse of a D-pad on that promotional game controller.

Hahaha, my thoughts exactly.

 

Edit: "Obviously, a fast internet connection is required on your end to stream the gameplay video. A 1.5 mbps connection (which is usually what base-level DSL is rated at) is required for standard-definition video (480p), while a 5.0 mbps connection is required for HD (720p). The actual necessary speed is a tad less than advertised, so as long as your provider says you have these speeds, you should be OK. "

I can get anywhere from 6 to 15 mbps depending, so its good to hear the option is at least open to me.

[Jeff]

Yeah that controller even if it is only a concept really sucks.

[Darth InSidious]

Either I'm missing something, or there's a distint lack of profit for game devs in this thing, since you only sell a single unit.

[JediAthos]

I heard a story about this today on Sirius....it's a realtively new concept but the person reporting the story seemed to think that it's the future of gaming and possibly the beginning of the end of the video game industry as we know it eventually making gaming retail stores obsolete.

 

That of course was his opinion not mine...personally I'm not sure that I would go for it or not. As has already been pointed out you would be at the mercy of your internet connection and for those that cannot get high speed internet it would be worthless. So, I would say that it may have a future, I don't think it's going to take off right away.

[Mav]

Even so, for some of these games I'd rather play them then look at them at the store and say "There is no way my computer would run that".

Exactly, so as far as I see this service it is more suited towards PC gaming than console gaming.

I can get anywhere from 6 to 15 mbps depending, so its good to hear the option is at least open to me.

Yea I have cable, but I have no idea how fast it is, all I know is that it sucks sometimes, but I probably wont be living here in the near future.

Either I'm missing something, or there's a distint lack of profit for game devs in this thing, since you only sell a single unit.

I would imagine that if this thing really gets off the ground, some publishers, e.g. EA, Ubisoft etc. would have their own subscriptions for their own games, or even make it where you 'buy' each individual game. I'm still not completely sold that this thing will take off and be the next big thing in gaming however.

[Nedak]

Looks like another way to suck money out of people...

[True_Avery]

Either I'm missing something, or there's a distint lack of profit for game devs in this thing, since you only sell a single unit.

"SAN FRANCISCO--The Nintendo keynote announcement of a new Zelda game for the DS this morning may have gamers buzzing, but for industry analysts, the biggest news out of the 2009 Game Developers Conference has been the announcement of the OnLive streaming game service. Analysts walked away from a Tuesday night press conference for the new service pondering the long-term impact it could have on digital distribution, console sales, and game retailers.

 

This morning, Wedbush Morgan Securities' Michael Pachter sent investors a note on GameStop bearing the dire title, "The Beginning of the End." While the actual content of the note was a little more reserved in its prediction, Pachter said OnLive could accelerate the industry's shift to digital distribution.

 

"In our view, the OnLive model will appeal immensely to publishers, who will likely derive greater revenue per sale than is derived through conventional retail distribution," Pachter said. "Instead of 20 percent of the game's purchase price going to retail and another 20 percent to the console manufacturer, OnLive will likely charge around 30 percent (our estimate) of the proceeds, with the balance going to the publisher."

 

Pachter said the success of digital distribution could undermine sales of new retail games and used games, thus providing a long-term threat to GameStop, which specializes in both markets.

 

In his own note, Signal Hill analyst Todd Greenwald told investors that OnLive is "stealing the show" at GDC 2009. Beyond the appeal to publishers and danger to the used-game market, Greenwald noted that OnLive's streaming would eliminate the need for console cycles entirely, since any hardware upgrades would happen beyond the consumer level.

 

"While there are still many details still unknown (pricing, launch date, retail distribution), this has the potential to be a game-changer," Greenwald said. "In our opinion, OnLive needs to launch with a big marketing campaign, to ensure that this becomes more than a niche product and caters to more than just the hardcore gamers and tech-savvy early adopters."

 

He added, "While this won't happen overnight, we think that the 'long-term threat' of digital distribution just got accelerated meaningfully."

 

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6206742.html?tag=latestheadlines;title;6

 

Looks like another way to suck money out of people...

Depending on the subscription price you may end up spending far less money on computer gaming than before. That is the point.

 

The sucking the money part comes now when you have to buy all the extra hardware, upgrades, games, etc for you computer before you can get anything to run moderately well.

[swphreak]

From what I got from reading the website, it looks like you need a subscription AND you still have to buy the games. There's a bit about trying before you buy.

 

It seems their target audience are people with crappy hardware, and if they can't/aren't going to pay for better hardware, why would they pay for top of the line internet connection, subscription to the service, and then paying for games.

 

There's still the unknown of bandwidth. I image it would be like streaming a movie from Netflix? At a gig of bandwidth an hour, that would add up quick. I'm at hour 27 on Mass Effect, and my monthly limit is 250 GB download (no idea what Comcast has for upload).

 

[Char Ell]

I think the concept is feasible but not yet practical. I had thoughts similar to Phreak's, in that ISP's are concerned about bandwidth utilization and have implemented or are thinking about implementing caps on their customers. IMHO the infrastructure of the Internet needs serious upgrading before a high-bandwidth utilization application like this will gain mass market appeal, like maybe 2500 GB/month as the normal cap instead of 250 GB. Besides, I want to game at 1080p at a minimum. Forget the 480p or 720p stuff.

[Sabretooth]

Considering my computer's specifications, it is safe to say that I am more than excited for this technology, despite it's current US-Only window.

 

I'm going to wait around for a while before speculating, partly because I know little of networking, partly because these guys look too schnazzy to not consider common problems. As far as I know though, they're using a new compression technique or something, so bandwidth utilization shouldn't be as high as expected.

 

It seems their target audience are people with crappy hardware, and if they can't/aren't going to pay for better hardware, why would they pay for top of the line internet connection, subscription to the service, and then paying for games.

Maybe not so much sense now, but it's going to end up better in the long run. For one, you won't need to make hardware upgrades every few years, all your save data etc. remains online, so can play it anywhere that has a decent Internet connection. There is the subscription sure, somebody has to pay for the servers, but I think the long-term benefits are greater.

 

I also think they'll try to make the service accessible if they want to survive, the Private Beta sign-up showed a minimum of 512 kb/s.

 

Final Point: Give these guys a chance, we don't know what they're capable of.

[mur'phon]

I'm with Sabre on this one, I won't stand a chance of getting a decent comp for quite a while, and if this mean I'll actually be able to play some new games in the next half-decade, I'm all for it.