You Can Throw Out Your Expensive Notebooks Now

I laughed when I first heard about this but now....

http://gizmodo.com/5351928/onlive-beta-now-streaming-spectacular-games-to-crappy-pcsmacs

 

Was going to sign for the beta, US only, screwed yet again, aha.

I just dont see this working though.

 

i actually think it is a REALLY good idea. if they can pull it off and for cheap i might get it...but only if it can run all games (including high end like crysis) on max settings w/ a good framerate. they also need it cheap. i can see this destroying consoles though.

 

well... let see this beta test.

 

I heard about someone doing something similar with cell phones. They showed Crysis and GTAIV.

(you'd have to lug around a controller though)

 

I'm less interested in this to buy games outright (I'd rather have it installed on my local machine and be able to mod it and play it when not connected to the net) than for the potential to allow people to get game subscription services. Think of something like Rhapsody except for games (and with a client that doesn't suck). Or the ability to demo games much easier, as you could just say "an account can play this game free for 20 minutes" instead of publsihers worrying about legal issues and DRM.

 

It certainly would be interesting to see, not sure about it until i tried, but only for people across the pond as usual.

 

i also think it would be a good idea if they can somehow manage to put it all together. it'll be like movies on demand. just think about hotels carrying onlive in their rooms

 

It is a great and inovative idea and likely the way of the future, but probably not the short term future. Mostly due to the restrictions of our current internet connections, even the best of them with that type of load would struggle to keep it consistent. But it is interesting to see the head of the company is the guy who invented Quicktime and there are quite a few other notable's on the board.

 

there was a thread about this awhile ago. I believe one of the main complaints of this was that you would need a very fast internet connection to make this work, as well as delay between pressing a key and the movement happening.

 

If they can get good games released on the PC from recent years and strike a deal with valve (tough) then I think it will work.

 

The one thing i did not know till yesterday was you have to buy each title then also pay a monthly service . Someone pointed this out on Shacknews.com and if its true its not much of a deal at all. So $50.00 for a game then $15.00 a month to use the service as its not an all you can eat buffet of games like i had that it was for that fee.

 

Latency would be a problem in FPS's for sure. It would be like playing CoD4 while downloading 5 torrents...

The reason that most players in online games have decent pings is becuase there's actually very little data going through the lines (ie: locations of players and interactions). Very little of the game's engine is actually uploaded/download ...not in the this case though...

The quality of a game's netcode is basically how to get the minimum amount of online information flowing to play the game. Imagine playing COD4 while actively downloading it (the environment, the engine etc would have to be coming over the line at the same speed a graphics card could render it)...

 

I guess turn-based games with no twitch pressure will benefit a little from this, not that the majority of FPS junkies in the PC gaming market will care much.

 

I hope with all my heart that this fails. Even if is works, the last thing I want it is to relinquish my control over my own gaming experience to some third party. At least when you own a game and play it on your own machine, you have full control over content, performance, etc. I wouldn't have to worry about changes to the gaming service or server or connection trouble. And if you're like me and play only one or two games, but over a long period of time, something like a subscription fee (which there would probably be) would end up costing more.

Besides, isn't half the fun in PC gaming building a machine powerful enough to handle it?

 

I do not want this to fail, but I do not want it to completely replace our physical desktops and laptops.

This will mostly bring in new PC gamers, just like the Wii brought in many non-gamers. The Wii expanded the gaming market, OnLive can expand the PC gaming market.

Most people with gaming desktops/laptops will not give theirs up for this. For instance, this cannot yet support features such as mods and custom content which give PCs a big boost over consoles. I also enjoy the fun of upgrading your components, running benchmarks, etc. I don't want to give that up and we don't have to. For those that just want things to work, the people who buy consoles, that is the target audience for OnLive, not us enthusiasts.

I hope this can boost PC gaming, greatly expand the audience of PC gamers and thus publishers and developers will show more interest in it, give us more games, maybe even more exclusives! This could turn PC gaming into a thriving market just like console gaming is.

 

Something like this is terrible for PC gaming. Whatever GPU's the system uses are going to be a standard, like consoles. The company will probably never want to upgrade the systems if they can get away with it. So we'll have games designed around the OnLive systems, and games graphics/physics/gameplay etc will never evolve. Aside from this, they would need a full server for each client to run games individually. So basically it's like everyone running 2 systems just to play a game. This sounds not only like a terrible idea, but terrible for the environment. You get 1 million users, and you're going to need 1 million full gaming systems for each one of them.

Is there any kind of info on how their system works? Right now I can't see how this will be anything but a complete FAILURE, and a HUGE loss of money for whatever person is investing in this.

 

I dont like it, lol.

In theory it's a perfect idea (like communism) but the bandwidth needed... well you can work it out (1000+ users streaming ~720p video each )

 

it's simple math really:
1024*768*32 = 25.2 Mbps

and that's just for frames, add in game data, input, latency, etc, even if the managed a real-time compression scheme, you'd need to practically be running it on a LAN for it to be anywhere near feasible.

Until ISPs move to fiberoptic DSL (which isn't going to happen for at least 10 years or more) this isn't going to happen, and by then I will have enjoyed thoroughly the laptop I didn't "throw out".

 

You're probably right about that. The Wii introduced new demographics to gaming, and cloud gaming would probably do the same. If it does catch on, I highly doubt it will completely replace traditional PC gaming. I just don't like the direction this new trend is going toward.

 

I still don't get how they manage latency of the controls. You need a really high bandwidth low ping (both up and downstream) connection. Most ISP's aren't as great as you think regarding both up and downstream. This usually requires a high cost business connection, so saving $500 on a PC would be consumed by the $100/month you spend on the super fast internet connection.

 

This is, to me not the wave of the future. The sale of electronic especially gaming related products must continue or else some other market will collapse in the world, for example the Xbox 360 or pretty much any console.

 

Also.....alot of people with desktops or nice monitors really dont want to be limited to just a 720p resolution

 

this isn't either one or the other situation. if they somehow manage to get this working through new technology i don't understand why it's so hard for some ppl to welcome this as an alternative mode of playing games. if anything this will help PC gaming by attracting gamers away from their consoles.

 

As someone else mentioned, I wholeheartedly disagree. The gaming trend brought on by the influx of new gamers by "push-a-button" gaming (I speak of consoles and "casual games" here) has overall ruined traditional PC gaming.

Game developers are now selling out to the average joe to produce silly things like platformers, popcap games, "wii fit", and other such cruft that grosses them huge net profit since everyone and their kid sister buys it (and plays for a whole of 2 minutes before buying the sequel).

Can you blame them? Who wants to risk their profits on a handful of critical neckbeards who will trash your new game engine if it's discovered that the models are low polygon, or it doesn't support a dynamic foliage system or ambient shadows.

Back when PC gaming even required basic knowledge (like at least knowing what FPS stands for), gamers held developers to a higher standard. Now with all these bastrdized "so-easy-mom-can-do-it" gaming systems the true gaming market (the ones that used to push the envelope, forcing developers to invest into next-gen engines, instead of 2D platformers) has been trashed and the dish has run away with the spoon.

/end rant

 

but the thing is.. if "sophisticated" pc gamers have become a such niche market then even in the absence of "casual" "console" gamers pc game devs *still* wouldn't make games catering to the needs of "higher standard." there simply wouldn't be any money to be made unless those "sophisticated" gamers are willing to shell out hefty premium over the normal $50 to cover the cost of creating "higher standard" games. also i don't think influx of new pc gamers "ruined" traditional pc gaming.rather, pc gaming has evolved like how consoles have evolved. there are still quality pc titles consistently being released for the pc despite the overall popularity of consoles.

 

I only see this working for casual gamers at most. The graphics will be mediocre. Another monthly fee? Also, You won't even own the games, it is going to be like Steam, but way worse since this is just a company with out a strong base, bankrupt and say good bye to your game collection.

 

I think this is a bad idea. Just think about this for one second: What if the publisher decides to revoke OnLive's license for the game? Or your personal license (for whatever reason)?

As it sits now, there exists very few games that can actually prevent you from playing them at the behest of the publisher. Mainly MMOs.

NERDRAGE~!!!++

Quitcher bichin. Popcap makes pretty good games, and if it wasn't for the "casual" market, I'm willing to bet PC gaming would be far far worse off than it is.

 

technically, you never own a game unless youre the developer(edit: or the publisher, whatever).

 

Way to go on missing my point.

 

i tend to go in tangents.

 

The market for this will be very small.

Sure, the idea is great but it's not working as they announced it to be and .. a monthly fee to play the games you bought? Lulz. ~
Didn't Engadget test it and in the end picture looked simply horrible? Not to mention very low resolution.

Here's some reading about it.
ShakNews already tested it and the results were not what they had hoped for.

 

anyway if you have a good (but not great) connection the studdering and pauses will make it feel you have a crapy machine.

 

More than likely with the devlopment of cloud computing this will be the way of the future, just not the near future.

 

This requires a controller and because of that, it's going to go over like a lead balloon with most PC gamers. If you want to play on a console, you buy a console. If you want to play on a PC, you play on a PC.

 

Not this AGAIN! (Like the 10th time in the last year). Bottom line, unless you can get pings <10ms, it won't work. Key control lag is the main issue, not to mention required bandwidth for higher resolutions.

Streammygame.com has been around for a while with similar technology. Should work well over a home network. Not sure why OnLive is touted so much. See this required UPSTREAM bandwidth required if you're gonna play outside of home, you won't get it.

http://www.streammygame.com/smg/modules.php?name=Manual#15

You need minimum 2Mbps to get 800x600.

 

Idea- Great

Execution- .... ?

 

There are two or three game streaming programs that you run from your OWN pc that are probably a better alternative than this for anybody that is actually interested.

 

I like the concept of this, its basically KVM'ing over IP/internet. It wont be feasible choice for a while though.

 

I don't see how a single person could like this. It's basically taking everything that sucks about consoles, and making it even WORSE. Atop that, charging a monthly fee atop your internet fees just for you to access your own games.

 

I would rather get a gaming laptop and latest games and make my frens jealous.

 

Pretty true, and unlike a console I am sure this leaves more room for problems and issues.

Many times people go console just to keep it simple, not because its cheaper or something.

Your not going to save much money with this service you would have to still have a laptop or computer, your going to need a fast internet connection, your going to have to pay full price for your games and then a monthly fee onttop of it.

Plus most likely soon as you want to stop paying the fee your games go poof and you cant play them anymore.

Its a really dumb idea and I wouldnt risk it untill its both cheaper, more efficient and backed by a company I know wont go up in smoke like Microsoft or Steam

Last I checked most people got a "gaming" laptop so they could game on the go, you pay that premium for the mobility. If you just wanted to game at home where you have your fast internet you would have a cheap desktop.

This service renders the mobility aspect almost completly gone because your average hot spot and wifi is not going to support the bandwidth needed to use this, you would be grounded at home.

For that may as well spend $600 for a desktop that can probably out game these server machines and have your own software/hardware with no fees.

 

I agree completely. This concept will not become properly feasible until new developments beyond fiberoptics. Considering most people do not have fiberoptics at the moment I can imagine it will be another 10 years before this is possible at a level where it can compete with gaming laptops/desktops and even consoles. Besides imagine the power of a gaming machine in 10 years Crysis will run on the equivalent of an eeepc at full settings lol

 

I'm going to give streammygame.com a try. I use my netbook primarily on my main floor since my home office is in my finished basement. With kids and all, I don't need them in my office so I'm relegated to my netbook. Problem is that you have to buy premium service to get above 720p.

 

Not unless every gamer was on 24 hours a day. If the average gamer plays an hour a day, one computer could serve 24 players (ignoring peak usage, gross oversimplification, etc)

 

I'm certainly not going to throw this notebook out.

Here's what I don't like:
- Compressed video
- Input lag
- 720p
- Subscription fee + game cost!

 

Exactly. All that to play games on your netbook. Better off just buying a reasonably powerful 12" or 13" notebook, and live with the 10% of games that won't run on it, just play those on your desktop.

The technology is just way to premature considering the available bandwidth and latency at the moment.

 

A nice way to rip off!!
Instead of $1000 at once for a gaming PC, spend subscription,game fee,internet + problems,lags,less graphics,less FPS 4sure,no ownership>1000$..
so streammygame.com can just G.T.H.

 

streammygame.com is only $9.99 per year not per month. Not a bad deal if you ask me, for home network only though. OnLive touts using their servers over the internet at a monthly subscription fee. That's what doesn't make sense to me, and is a ripoff.

 

You are forgetting the immense task of compressing all thats being rendered to low bandwidth streamable video.