IG-64 Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Since the entire internet is talking about this, I thought I'd start some discussion here. If you don't know what OnLive is, it's basically a service that accepts your input for a game, renders the game on their servers, then streams the game back to you, basically removing the need for advanced personal hardware. This theoretically allows you to play high-end games on top settings with cheap computers. It's the basic "cloud computing" concept, but it looks like this one's actually gaining ground. The good points: It allows people with old hardware to run new games. It significantly ups the amount of graphics capabilities (theoretically) possible. I suppose it could fix some client vs. server problems. It allows your friends to see what you're playing by receiving the same stream of the game you're getting. The bad points: It's a subscription. You need good internet. If this thing isn't killed by low acceptance and low integration, then it would be killed by lag. They're basically claiming that they magically fixed the lag issue somehow, which I'll have to see to believe. Also, an infrastructure will probably be needed. I don't care how awesome your streaming capabilities are, if there's only one set of servers that are across the world somewhere, the laws of physics will make it impossible to play a game. Also, I'm not sure I'm a big fan of anyone trying to kill the modding community, as I find that an extremely important part of gaming (PC gaming at least), and I don't see how that would be possible on this system. Oh, and you don't get a copy of the game that you own yourself, physically or otherwise. I'm obviously a skeptic. It has exciting possibilities, especially in the realm of multiplayer and MMO games. If they can run everyone's full setting single player copies of a game, what's stopping them from making, say, a Crysis-level MMO on a huge scale? But regardless of the possibilities, I'm doubtful this will take off. And even if it does, I don't think it should take over all gaming. There are too many issues that could maybe even set the industry back instead of help it. I think that if it does get acceptance, then it should add to and compliment the gaming industry, and not take it over completely. So now that what I think is out of the way, begin discussion! Edit: Here's their press conference: http://gdc.gamespot.com/video/6206692/gdc-2009-onlive-press-conference?tag=videos;title;8 Here's some videos: http://media.pc.ign.com/articles/965/965599/vids_1.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BongoBob Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Sounds like the old Phantom console from way back in the day that never materialized. The technology behind it seems solid, but my issues pretty much mirror yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troopr-Undr-Fir Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Yeah, got a link to this site the other day. In my opinion does not bode well for the gaming industry. Now the reason for that I think would have to be the taking away of hard ware distributed. There has to be some physics type law that states you can only condense something so far, and I believe that if everything exists in this 'cloud' like it seems to be moving toward, creativity goes out the window. Now I may just be biased because I work with my hands, sweat, blood and tears and to see manufacturing jobs being taken away to replace it with some concept of it being digital is always going to be a bad idea. Be it made in this country or not. Also, one other thing: How the feck is it going to be fun having latency in a single player game? No es bueno I says... No Es Bueno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acdcfanbill Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 utterly imbecilic imho. Rendering graphics any significant distance from the display is an exercise in wastefulness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Seems like a big waste. If the people can't afford decent hardware, what makes you think they can afford the good internet connection that will be required or the subscription? For Standard-Definition TV resolution, OnLive needs a 1.5 Mbps connection. For HDTV resolution (720p60), OnLive needs 5 Mbps. 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IG-64 Posted March 27, 2009 Author Share Posted March 27, 2009 If the people can't afford decent hardware, what makes you think they can afford the good internet connection that will be required or the subscription? I thought the same thing. 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). They addressed this in the press conference. Their answer was basically "we don't think anyone plays that much"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 They addressed this in the press conference. Their answer was basically "we don't think anyone plays that much"... My 27 hours so far begs to differ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obi Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 It's all apart of the illuminati's secret plan to kill 90 %of the world's population and create the NWO. It's all right there on the alex jones show. Don't say I didn't warn you! ........ What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 I agree with most of you, I think it's a cool concept but I don't see it revolutionizing the industry or anything like that. I personally like owning the boxed copy of my games, I know it doesn't make a difference just a personal preference. I'm also guessing that along with a subscription fee this would involve microtransactions, something I am not a fan of at all. If it works well then it'd be sweet to be able to play games my current computer can't run but I just don't get how they can make it run smoothly on a 1.5 mbps internet connection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_hill987 Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 I think this is Fail with a capital F. For the same reasons you all mentioned really, the internet isn't up to it. Plus, I like upgrading my PC hardware, is it really that strange a hobby? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dath Maximus Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 i agree with obi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BongoBob Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Seems like a big waste. If the people can't afford decent hardware, what makes you think they can afford the good internet connection that will be required or the subscription? That's my internet result as of this posting. I've had this internet for quite a while. I also had a single core Athlon XP CPU with 768mb of ram and a 128mb AGP video card, until the video card crapped out on me about a month ago. "I DISAGREE!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoxStar Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 That's my internet result as of this posting. I've had this internet for quite a while. I also had a single core Athlon XP CPU with 768mb of ram and a 128mb AGP video card, until the video card crapped out on me about a month ago. "I DISAGREE!" Holy ****! You're 250 miles away too! Fiber Y/N ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 And how much is your fancy fiber line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BongoBob Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 No fiber. Just plain old Cable internet. EDIT: IIRC it's $60 a month, but I might be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IG-64 Posted March 28, 2009 Author Share Posted March 28, 2009 Mine's advertised as 6MB/s, so I could do the HD according to them. It's 35$ a month. Which isn't too bad. At the same time, I don't know how much the subscription to their service will be on top of that, not to mention game purchases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_hill987 Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 This is a must read on the subject. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/gdc-why-onlive-cant-possibly-work-article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IG-64 Posted March 28, 2009 Author Share Posted March 28, 2009 This is a must read on the subject. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/gdc-why-onlive-cant-possibly-work-article Yep, that's what I thought. The technology would have to be far beyond anything possible right now. Bugger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TiE23 Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 No no no no, don't post any more SpeedTest results, this is not one of those threads! (lol) I have access to FioS... but for some reason my family hasn't gotten around to ditching ****ty Comcast and they're stupid 250gb cap yet. Also, I am skeptical to its awesomeness. Hated it at first... but thought that... hey... if it gets more people to play PC games, that's all right with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M@RS Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 I like the concept, but I'd have to agree. I want mods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 For TiE: Anyway, that's just the regular comcast cable internet, $60/mo I believe, 100mi away from server. Also, one other thing: How the feck is it going to be fun having latency in a single player game? No es bueno I says... No Es Bueno. From what they say, latency on a regular server type scenario is about 500ms (.5seconds). However, the way their servers are set up, the latency is >1ms. 1ms is well below the range of human perception. For all intents and purposes, there would be no "latency" or "lag" issues. Estarás diciendo "¡esté es una buena idea!" cuándo la ves Seems like a big waste. If the people can't afford decent hardware, what makes you think they can afford the good internet connection that will be required or the subscription? Ehh, I have a pc from early 2003 that only cost me $1000 then. Of course, I've upgraded the video card, but it's still only an 256 AGP card and I can't run Crysis at all. ^^My cable connection is more than fast enough for me to run the HD (780p) version of Crysis on their server. Or so they say. 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). IG, that's a bit misleading. What they said in their conference was that they estimate about 60hr/month for the average gamer. They also said that it uses about 2mb/sec to stream this whole deal. Do the math: 2mb/sec x 60sec/min x 60min/hour x 60hour/month gametime = 432gb/month / 8gb/GB = 54 GB/month average. If you have a 250 GB cap with comcast, that leaves you 196GB for the rest of the month. You should be alright. They also said that they've discussed this with most major ISPs (verizon, comcast, etc) and they seem to be ok with the idea. IMHO, modding is the most important issue at hand. I'm not on-board with this yet, but it intrigues me, that's for sure. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acdcfanbill Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 2mb/sec is really low, especially for game video which will be much harder to compress than films as it has very little stable motion. On top of that, they said it's going to be 60fps, which is twice as many frames as NTSC, again making it harder to compress. I would allot at least 6mb/sec if you want to play at anything nearing a high def resolution. Meaning your 54 would become 162, leaving you 88GB to play with for a month. According to my bandwidth montitor, i've run through +350 gigs since March 1st. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWally Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Just throwing this out there: Bandwidth limits suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troopr-Undr-Fir Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 From what they say, latency on a regular server type scenario is about 500ms (.5seconds). However, the way their servers are set up, the latency is >1ms. 1ms is well below the range of human perception. For all intents and purposes, there would be no "latency" or "lag" issues. Estarás diciendo "¡esté es una buena idea!" cuándo la ves Well honestly, how many times have we all heard the 'end all to latency' malarkey before? I'm just putting my money on a large majority of people who will try this won't have good times because of a lack of bandwidth. Ya digg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.