Ambitious cloud gaming service OnLive launches in the UK today, potentially transforming the way many gamers consume their games.
UK pricing details were also released this morning and the surprising news that retailer GAME will stock OnLive in its UK stores.
We've attempted to answer all of your burning questions in our OnLive UK FAQ, but there are of course some queries that are better put to the men behind the tech.
Are you confident OnLive can keep up with the market as demand increases?
It's a high-class problem to have. Right now we've built a lot of capacity because we think the demand is pretty high. So far we've been able to keep building ahead of demand. We have a really well developed supply chain between us and our fulfilment partners, we have big relationships with people who own data centers so we have lots of space and network connectivity. It's a big, expensive business to build.
For the servers that power this we have a programme where they're manufactured in one country, assembled in another and then boat or trucked shipped to data centers, installed one rack at a time and it all just comes online. That's 80 new simultaneous players coming on in a click.
The business has been built to scale. We spent seven years in R&D mode before we went live which was a long slog building the tech to support what we're doing. This is the fun part where we get to worry about all the games, the Facebook connect and the stuff that gamers care about. All the other stuff was pushing a boulder up a hill to make sure this is possible.
How long do you think it will be before cloud gaming becomes the dominant way the public plays games?
I don't think consoles are going away any time soon and I don't think existing PCs are going away either. I think the opportunity is that over time this architecture makes sense. As my PC dies the question I have is 'do I want to buy another one with a higher end system, or is it time for me to upgrade my graphics card or not?' Those are the times when we start to come into play as a real meaningful decision and take market share.
What problems do you think you still have left to overcome?
It's a whole lot of small problems; rolling out in a new territory, having the right promotions for that territory... we're rolling out in the UK and thus far we have amazing games but we don't have a football game. That's something that we'll certainly be fixing.
Comments
161 comments so far...
ilovenewtech on 22 Sep '11 said:
Interesting, but I would rather pay the £500 to Sony or Microsoft and own everything proper. Sorry OnLive!!!!!
laminated0 on 22 Sep '11 said:
It's interesting but I can see Microsoft and Sony making plans with developers that if they put a game on their system they cannot put it on onlive period. Plus I would actually much rather have an actual console and discs in my hands than this onlive.
ianson on 22 Sep '11 said:
Cloud computing IS the future but, I will be the one operating my cloud. My content will be on MY computer and I will actually own it. This guy is so full of sh*t and hyperbole it is unreal. SO he is telling us that he is able to encode HD video over 1000 times faster than conventional encoders after 7 year of r&d? Like YouTube and Google haven't been sinking millions into video compression. The best minds in circulation today haven't been able to do it but, these guys pulled it out of nowhere... AND IN REALTIME. He reckons he can get the whole market in 5 years?
I'll tell you what the truth of this push is about:
1) They can use smoke and mirrors to get x number of people running to an acceptable standard. Note acceptable.
2) They will keep pushing till they reach somewhere near that number.
3) That number is magically the same as y which is the amount needed to ride out 5 years.
4) When the real technology arrives in 5 years they will already have the infrastructure and be able to monopolise the market.
PLEASE Sony/MS make the next gn cloud compatible FROM OUR HOMES. PS3 already capable of it with varying results. DO IT. Sony make it run on Android and iOS and MS make it run on Win8. DESTROY ONLIVE....
StonecoldMC on 22 Sep '11 said:
Was that an almost semi negative post from ilovenewtech?
If it was, then I think we have found your kryptonite
.
RoKuShaKuBoJutSu on 22 Sep '11 said:
These idiots are trying too hard. The vast majority of the people I know hate the idea of sinking their hard earned money into something they will never own. It's a joke and this clown is out of touch with reality. Next gen consoles are going to be doing so much more than this sheety online service. As others have said here often enough, this is just a glorified rental service.
Sangor on 22 Sep '11 said:
So both Sony and Microsoft's exclusive games such as gears of war 3 and uncharted 3 will be available on Onlive?
Do onlive's marketing people actually believe any of the crap that they are spewing, the games that are available from onlive are Pc games. The day that Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony start making games for onlive is the day that I will sign up for the service.
RichPerry on 22 Sep '11 said:
I'm intrigued by this OnLive thing, doesn't sound like a bad idea at all as long as you've got the internet connection to support it. Interesting what is said near the end, it sounds to me like you'll be able to use their controller with a tablet? I don't have one personally, but I know the lack of tactile controls is a constant thorn in the side of tablet gamers, so it's interesting to hear about this possible solution. Could get quite messy though, trying to hold a tablet and a controller.
The_KFD_Case on 22 Sep '11 said:
1) OnLive's game list is so far a bit dated, so if that will be the trend then forget playing the latest and greatest titles as they come out. This may or may not be an issue for some.
2) OnLive's pricing for various games is just as expensive as buying retail copies. Indeed, in some instances it is cheaper to buy retail copies be it from online stores or high street stores doing a sale.
3) No one outside of Sony really know what launch window they have for a "PS4", nor what price range they may be aiming for. The same goes for any future MS console. It even holds true of Nintendo' Wii U which is at least confirmed.
4) We keep coming back to this sticking point again and again and again and it just will not go away: OnLive is a glorified rental service and a pricey one at that. When you buy a console, when you buy a game that doesn't require you to be online to play it, you have access to that gaming experience whenever you want without having to rely on any of the companies involved to grant you access to that gaming experience. That is a superior service to what OnLive offers.
5) Speaking of service, let us not forget that despite OnLive's best efforts to talk up their own abilities, there are posters in this forum who have tried their service and found it to be alright yet there are also other posters who have tried it and found there to be rough graphics and a stuttering lag. Precisely the two things that OnLive is ever so keen to present itself as being above.
6) At the end of the day whatever you spend on OnLive will leave you without anything tangible to lay claim to and use at your discretion in the future unlike current console and PC gaming. In a nutshell you have no recourse other than to keep paying to play which, thanks to the nature of compounded interest, will over time become quite a bit of money. (I refer to point 2 above for further damaging assessment of just how "cheap" OnLive will be for the customer.)
OnLive is a money sink hole, people!
LJE1993 on 22 Sep '11 said:
Well just tried some demos, very quick with no noticable lag but I don't know where they are getting this 'next generation graphics' from. Sure the graphics are on par with a good PC but the resolution is terrible and I can't find any settings to change, there also seems to be no AA, I have not seen jaggies like this since the PS1 meaning the games look worse than their console counterparts. Overall a lot of potential especially on low power devices like tablets but I won't be switching from consoles or PC yet.
Ali_ on 22 Sep '11 said:
MInimum internet speed : 2Mbps
Recommended internet speed: 5 Mbps
Well, that rules out most of the UK then BT get their finger out their arse and start sorting out the network.
WHERESMYMONKEY on 22 Sep '11 said:
I'm basically going to use this as a huge demo repository. But i'd still pay for a home console from the big three because i can't get the same from onlive. There won't be or ever will be any of their exclusives on the service and they are by far the best bunch of games on each platform respectively.
Will on live get any exclusives, unless it somehow gets a massive marketshare very quickly or dolls out loads of cash. probably not.
Lance Uppercunt on 22 Sep '11 said:
OnLive can kiss my ass.
plodalong28 on 22 Sep '11 said:
is it just me or can anyone else predict this failing big time? It's needs about 5-10 years before the internet in this country is good enough for a product like this to stand any chance.
Barca Azul on 22 Sep '11 said:
I'm sure there will be a market for this, just not sure when and how much.
Itre will be a market for this, just not sure when and how much.
It holds no interest for me personally mind and I'd rather spend 300-400 Euros on a PS4. One for the additional media, second for the resolution and 3rd for the 1st Party software.
It will probably be ten years before I have a quick enough connection and they can stream a content that looks ok on my TV!
stealth on 22 Sep '11 said:
1) There business is failing
2) People want to actually own there games, not rent them
3) Hes full of hot air
ilovenewtech on 22 Sep '11 said:
Hi StonecoldMC and all super awesome fellow forum posters, hope you are all feeling awesome today even though the cold and shorter days are upon us. Nah I hope I did not sound negative ( I am sitting in an annual Health and Safety meeting and trust me that will rub the shine off anyone). I am open to to the idea of digital distribution but we are not ready yet, games are very different to music/movies and as such will need a new bussiness model. As for OnLive I see possibities but not until a bussiness model is devised that can incorparate me owning the software and not the kind of rental system they have in place now. It could be AWESOME but we will have to wait and see. Plus I love my consoles and collection of games and really am quite super awesome happy with the video games industry right now!!!!!
Now enjoy this slice of super awesome happy cake and a nice cool glass of fizzy pop StonecoldMC and enjoy the awesomness!!!!!
phate666 on 22 Sep '11 said:
KFD has posted a few points about onlive in the past few days and this is probably the best of them. These are my, and I would guess, a lot of peoples main concerns with onlive and with their present business model, I can't see them overcoming these issues.
I wouldn't wish that a new business fail in todays climate, so I'll just guess (and/or hope) that they don't do anywhere near as well as they want.
And to answer the main question of the article, yes I do want to spend £/$500 on the next console because then it's mine, I can keep it or sell it and I can play it when my internet is down.
stealth on 22 Sep '11 said:
CVG is definitly getting paid by onlive. They even have it as a main section on there site, when guess what. Knowbody is buying the thing
Dimpee on 22 Sep '11 said:
Im all for cloud gaming, but I would rather buy a PS3/PS4 and purchase all my games including EXCLUSIVES from the PS store. I hope OnLive does well though!
phate666 on 22 Sep '11 said:
The site is called computer and video games. Of course they are going to heavily cover an emerging new media!
DoomGuy84 on 22 Sep '11 said:
I am intrigued by OnLive, i agree with what the guy is saying, when the new Xbox and PS4 are released, probably for around £350 and you can get the same games (bar the exclusives) from a device that costs £70, a lot of people might go for OnLive. I also like the fact they will upgrade their hardware with the best graphics cards etc every 12 months.
Dannyb0yUK on 22 Sep '11 said:
Sorry CVG, but are you on a 'per-OnLive-article' commission basis or something?
humanhand on 22 Sep '11 said:
Going off of just the headline... eeee yeah, those aren't the only options there buddy. Seriously ridiculous.
WHITEyy118 on 22 Sep '11 said:
OnLive: 'Do gamers want to pay $500 for a PS4, or get the same games with us?'
pay $500 for a PS4
KK-Headcharge78 on 22 Sep '11 said:
Keep your s**tty service and yes I'll take the console.
gideonseer on 22 Sep '11 said:
To answer the headline question...
...that depends entirely on the quality of game available and the likelihood of the service being there long term.
For now, given its potential user base transferring from PS3, I'd go for PS4 all the way.
richomack360 on 22 Sep '11 said:
Would rather buy an Xbox thanks ! Sorry, am not sold on this cloud gaming nonsense - if the internet goes down I can still play my games locally or LAN, OnLive has no backup option.
Also I am SURE the game companies will love having to buy dev kits from console manufacturers that are losing money from lost console revenue...they wont pass on the lost revenue as extra cost will they.....errrm....
Stupid idea, stupid person. Leave gaming alone.
kirankara on 22 Sep '11 said:
£70 plus subscription fees over the years, plus money to "buy" AAA games , which you won't own. The figures aren't quite as stacked in it's favor at this point .you could easily spend more than cost of xbox,ps4 in subscription fees over 3 years, and still have to spend double that to get the best games that will be available on the consoles anyway.
You would have to be an idiot to subscribe to this business model. I'd rather take my £500 and by a reasonably high spec pc and then buy my games cheaper than online will sell them for, and not have to pay subscription fees for games that no one wants, and £30+ for better games.
KillerKing on 22 Sep '11 said:
i don't trust my internet connection enough to get this thing; i have frequent issues with xbox live, imagine trying to stream a full game on it!
ianson on 22 Sep '11 said:
The issue isn't needing AA. Anti aliasing is probably running on their servers the issue is that the HD image is COMPRESSED and it isn't a lossless compression cos there is no such thing. It is like trying to send HDMI signal through an AV cable... think about how long youtube takes to load an HD video. Their compression is pretty darn good but it certainly ain't realtime. So when you start playing everything WILL be slightly blurry even if you live a mile from the servers. I am telling you people it is a CON to set themselves up for when the technology and infrastructure can actually handle it. The UK government has sunk billions into updating the internet connection infrastructure in the next 8 years. They know they can't provide the service completely NOW but, in 5 years it is more realistic. They want to set themselves up to own a monopoly when that happens.
ianson on 22 Sep '11 said:
i should clarify, before someone tells me I am wrong, I am mean the level of lossage is like hdmi-av. Is an exaggeration, I kow. But, you get the idea.
I am surprised they are wasting their time with games if they have made compression algorthms that can do what they claim then there are MUCH more lucrative ways to sell that tech... ergo, they are full of poo.
cglev on 22 Sep '11 said:
To be honest, the idea seems crap (At least for a few years yet). personally id rather buy a console and own a stack of games. Also I cant see it working if anyone else in the UK or other areas share the same problem as myself, where the internet is limited to about 2-3mbps and the maximum monthly allowance in my area is only 40gb. with internet limitation like that, its bad enough doing all the system updates from Sony.
laminated0 on 22 Sep '11 said:
I love it because everyone who's posted here (and who frequent this site i would imagine) are avid gamers, onmives core target audience, and no-one wants their product = fail.
We want our consoles and to own the media we buy to play on them. Plus microsot, sony and i imagine nintendo already have some sort of digital distribution within the consoles capabilities, so you can buy their product using your console and download the game, you dont get a disc or a case but you have the game and you own the right to play it online or off and if it gets deleted you can re-download it free of charge. This just means that all the BIG 3 companies in direct competition with onlive are going to destroy onlive most prob.
RandyChimp on 22 Sep '11 said:
Thanks for asking, yes, I'd rather pay the $500 for the ps4 than buy onLive. See you later.
svd_grasshopper on 22 Sep '11 said:
why is 'the cloud' the future?
seems to me there is less profit to be made with it...
so why would it prevail, even when it does become viable?!
lordirongut on 22 Sep '11 said:
Call me old-fashioned, but I like to actually own my things. If I spend money on a new console, all of the games I buy will either be in boxes on MY shelf or downloaded onto MY hard drive. I don't like the idea of someone else being in control of the things I paid money for - I don't want to be in the situation where they drop support for one of my games because demand isn't high enough (something they can and will do). It would kill the entire idea of retro gaming and that's something I'm not prepared for. I hope OnLive dies a quick, painful and humiliating death so that Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft don't get any ideas because if this becomes the norm, I'm giving up modern gaming.
hi0marc on 22 Sep '11 said:
I am pretty confident if i was to sink 4/5 days into the next major FPS i buy the game on console will remain £40 (give/take DLC), however with online i have no idea how much they could charge, and am sure it would be more for that period
BOYD1981 on 22 Sep '11 said:
I'd rather pay the money. I've been without proper internet since moving house over 2 weeks ago, but at least I could still play all my games including those I bought through Steam. And my Xbox also works fine without being connected to the internet.
It doesn't matter how good internet finally becomes in this country (and right now it's pretty crappy) there will always be periods in which you can not access it. And what happens when the OnLive servers go down for maintenance? At least if Xbox Live or PSN go down you can still play single player.
Sammy_bham on 22 Sep '11 said:
ps4 everytime
gmcb007 on 22 Sep '11 said:
Part 2 of the interview? Oh ffs it's RAGE praise all over again.
Time and time again, they slag off the consoles yet they fail to see the positives that consoles have over their silly netflix router.
bazgil on 22 Sep '11 said:
I downloaded Onlive earlier and it can't even get to the start screen without freezing and saying there's a problem with my network. My network is working fine; I tested it and it showed a low ping, and a speed above that which is required by the service. Web pages and videos load very quickly, video chat works really well, but Onlive just won't load. Is anyone else having issues starting it up? That way I know if it's a problem with their servers. I'm guessing it is, seeing as it only launched today so it's likely too many people are trying to sign in.
wasted-again on 22 Sep '11 said:
Just joined, picked up Deus Ex fer a quid. So far I'm very impressed, graphics aren't much better than on say a PS3 or my humble 3 year old PC, but it has none of the choppyness that I've been getting on my regular PC copy. Slight delay when looking about(about the same as you'd get if you switched from a wired mouse to a wireless one). Signed up for the £6.99 monthy pack just to see what a whole bunch of different types of games play like, and pre-ordered the Saints Row 3rd game for £24, as you get a free Onlive console with it(got the email with the code, followed the link only to find they only post the console to continental US addresses
). 
spaced73 on 22 Sep '11 said:
rather spend £500 ($800) and own something,with all the problems of internets going down you would be stuffed,and dont so its unhackable nothing is.
a3HeadedMonkey on 22 Sep '11 said:
So where is the iOS & Android section?
Your point is invalid.
Also, f**k Onlive. They are trying to take ownership & control away from the customer & charge you a subscription in the process. If this succeeds, it will be the beginning of the end for many things. Namely people being smart & knowing how to keep control away from the big money making corps. We are the customers, we vote with our wallets, let's make sure we stay the ones in power, yes?
MattyR95 on 22 Sep '11 said:
I like the idea of Onlive. However, I think publishers, developers and maybe Onlive itself will be greedy and overcharge. These games should be cheaper than physical games not more expensive. Plus there's subscriptions involved, so I think should be a large discount.
wasted-again on 22 Sep '11 said:
What "ownership & control" do you have now? You might as well say the same things about TV and Radio.
And there isn't a subscription to use the service, it's free, you pay to buy each game, or you can pay a monthly sub to rent a group of games(over a hundred I think for £6.99).
Try using the service before slagging it off, you might sound like less of a t**t.
a3HeadedMonkey on 22 Sep '11 said:
No, TV & radio is streamed like Onlive is. You're getting your comparissons ass backwards. It's more like a DVD player & a DVD. I own the disc, can sell it if I want, play it whenever I want. No internet needed, no rental service, no bulls**t (unlike you).
LOL. YOU sir are a t**t. How can you contradict yourself in the same paragraph? Do you work for Onlive, cos' you sure are a f**king try hard about this. Please, f**k off. ktnxbai
Mmmmgrolsch on 22 Sep '11 said:
Altogether now!
Are you crippled? Everybody has control over when they play there games!
Anyway I've been trying to play a demo of a few different games for the last hour and nothings working because the servers are to busy
Taken half an hour to log in.
If you want this s**tty s**tty service to be your future go ahead be a mug. But don't spout your complete and utter bulls**t at everyone that has their facts right.
dwhlufc on 22 Sep '11 said:
If anyone's interested I have a code Wipeout fury hd,I'll sell it to you for £17.99 even though you can buy the disc version for £9.99.
S**t deal yeah?that's all that onlive are offering you but worse as you never actually own the game,nit even on a hdd.
Paranoimia on 22 Sep '11 said:
Aside from KFD's excellent points, I also recall seeing a price list with text stating that games will be available until "at least" some date in the future.
To me, that implies that even though you'll be paying pretty much full retail prices to 'own' a game, you may well lose access to it once that date passes. Which means a resounding "no thanks" from me - I'll take the PS4, even if it's $700.
Player27 on 22 Sep '11 said:
I've registred only to post this !
OnLive is a really big JOKE, Ill pay for a console rather some digital pixels, when PS4 and Xbox720 will be on the store, ill get them BOTH, i don't care about OnLive, i want to fell that i am the owner of what i buy/get, not some text which says "You bought X Game, Congratz" PC & Consoles > OnLive, i mean everything oncloud for gamers.
Oh yea, on OnLive you don't get PS Move, or Kinect or NOTHING entertaining, just stare to a nerdish pixels.
KesMonkey on 22 Sep '11 said:
Where on earth did you get that idea? Lossless compression has existed for decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_data_compression
SavageEvil on 22 Sep '11 said:
Interesting read, but many people will get this service because it doesn't clutter up your living space and should be pretty easy to use providing you have a fast enough internet connection and steady stream of money. I for one find cloud based anything intriguing, but see the one thing I will probably never get over is paying for the right to play? Last time I checked a drivers' license was the only thing we really had to pay to do.
Simply put I don't like paying for something that I can never own, I don't expect to own the streets I drive on, but video games I do. Online doesn't give you back up in case your internet goes down or should you have no money to pay your sub you lose ability to play the games you supposedly paid for...awesome! This economic climate we want our money's worth with every purchase and paying for a glorified video game rental service is the epitome of crazy, for me anyways.
I don't get the whole rush to cloud gaming, storage and digital downloads, are we that uninitiated that we can't see that we are basically rushing into having less rights, also our money isn't going as far as it used to. These companies are heralding this so called revolution, but it is the most backwards revolution ever, this one you are giving away your perks in return for convenience and that's about it. Some people may like having convenience but to me it's just not worth it, losing my ability to hold physical media and some tangible evidence that I paid for my piece of gaming, music or such media. Throw it all away so I can access a cloud which removes ownership of my piece of media, and shifts it solely to the vendor, and the kicker they claim lower prices because of the removal of the middleman, yet the prices have a 5-10 difference...right who are you kidding? They just want to soak up the majority of the regular asking price for themselves, and are still afraid to lower the price much when they do lower it.
no thanks I'll pay the $500 for my console or PC and enjoy owning my damn purchases in my home, to play them at my leisure. Ever tried to resell digital media...anyone?!? Owning what you bought, barring a power outage can play without internet connection, having the option to resell if need be...I'll take the mild inconvenience the console brings.
fonjackerjon on 22 Sep '11 said:
£500 for a ps4 please. PEOPLE WANT TO BE ABLE TO PLAY GAMES OFFLINE!!! what part of that dont you understand dickhead?
rbt2 on 22 Sep '11 said:
You've lost your creepy, overly happy edge....and about f**king time too!!!!
As for paying 500 dollars...I'd pay 500 in pwopa money. i.e pounds sterling.
Cos I can.
Paupers.
spaceman_DOUG on 22 Sep '11 said:
I want the most control, ownership and access to my games with the smallest amount of restrictions. Currently pirated games are doing this the best.
Industry, get your s**t together.
Mastermue on 22 Sep '11 said:
With the bandwidth/downloading caps with UK internet, this service just won't work. I have no intention of switching to BT as they are too expensive and the games on sale are just wwaayy too expensive. Just where are they expecting people to find this amount of cash? I'm sticking to consoles until Onlive becomes feasible.
Soviet1918 on 22 Sep '11 said:
I couldn't agree more.
Did anyone else notice they "Onlive" almost called people who wanted to pay for the next console idiots,
at least thats how i read it.
Windowlicker79 on 22 Sep '11 said:
Looks pretty good to me...
PS3 vs PC vs OnLive - Ultimate Comparison (HD)
http://i54.tinypic.com/2emzigl.jpg
The_KFD_Case on 22 Sep '11 said:
For me it isn't about how good it looks (or not compared to how my gaming desktop, laptop, and Xbox 360 play the games I play). It's about who has the control. I will be the uncle of a bare-ass monkey before I knowingly pay for the dubious "service" of having someone else control my access to games I've paid for. It really is the height of stupidity to willingly pay to have your rights and your ownership diluted further than they already for the mere sake of "convenience" (as if popping a DVD or BR or other disc into a disc holder is such a gargantuan laborious task).
If the people who choose to support this folly didn't risk dragging myself and others in to a much, much worse world of customer rights, payment schemes, loss of control and power, etc. I wouldn't care much as they are doing it to themselves willingly. The problem is that detestable crap like this does give other companies ideas and ideas are hard to kill - they're bulletproof in fact.
mideonphish on 22 Sep '11 said:
My view is that it just wont work even if there were decent 'AAA' titles available on it, they are relying on being able to charge high fees for a subscription service that may or may not even be able to be used where a given user lives depending on the speed and reliability of the internet connections involved.
I of course and I'm guessing many other users would rather just buy the stuff from Microsoft or Sony myself as least I know that it's mine and I can play it when I feel like it without messing around with downloads or paying subscriptions.
As they say in a famous commercial: Simples!
alan666 on 22 Sep '11 said:
you still need a pretty decent PC/Laptop with a decent stand alone GPU, so you may as well get a PS4/XBOX-720 etc
rockstarsean on 23 Sep '11 said:
As a gamer I think that Onlive is a great little addition to the many ways I can game. The demos, the arena etc are all cool little bonuses & getting Deus Ex: Human Revolution for £1 was nice too! I just doubt if financially it can survive, the per-month-package is sadly sparse, it lacks nearly every recent AAA title and the pricing is pretty steap for rentals & full passes.
But yeah, I'm having fun with it so there.
hippooo on 23 Sep '11 said:
Like others have already said, just a glorified rental service
http://www.onlive.co.uk/support/getstarted
Read the T&C for when you 'buy' a game
ie if you 'buy' Deus Ex Augmented edition for £44.99, OnLive only has to support it for 3 years. After 3 years, OnLive are ENTIRELY WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS to remove it & hence you would no longer be able to play it. So you've spent £45 to 'buy' a game & there's no guarantee that you'll still be able to play it in 3 years time!
Only an idiot would sink their money in OnLive purchases rather than buying retail copies (or from Steam).
sabre2011 on 23 Sep '11 said:
I have been reading through the bulk of the above replies and I am stunned at the mis information that people are attempting to spread. Its crazy how you fanboys defend your consoles lol and you will even lie to do it.
1. Onlive has AAA games.. Deus Ex , Batman arkham, Space Marines, Homefront, Dirt 3, Fear 2 & 3, Bordelands, Saints row2 and soon 3
2. Onlive is cheaper than brick and mortar stores. I paid $9 for splinter cell conviction. I paid 69 cents for Batman arkham and I paid $26 for tropico. If you look at the market place they are constantly reducing prices. They also have $5 Fridays and it would not be the first time a AAA has been included in that.
3. You console owners need to know you do not OWN those discs you paid so much for. You do not OWN your consoles. You OWN a license to play those discs and consoles. At any time that license can be removed. Steam can remove your license to play a game at any point and has done so in the past. Microsoft has locked people's Xbox's out from multiplayer making them single player only. Anyone remember Microsoft killing HAlo 2 multiplayer??, Crimson skies?? So I state you do not OWN those physical media.
4 Onlive will allow you to play your games once paid for up to 4 years. Some games longer. The amount of time the game stays on the server depends on how much its being played years from now. However in a recent interview the CEO of Onlive was quoted as stating that he intends Onlive to keep all its games.
5. Onlive is now porting console games to its servers. Anyone heard of "Orcs must Die"? Microsoft game. There are others that are coming and you can easily pull up Onlives latest list to see for yourself.
6. Its free to use. You only pay for any games you wish to play. There is no annual fee....Can we say Micro$oft...
Honestly Fanboys if you are going to slam something at least try and get your facts straight before you post!
The_KFD_Case on 23 Sep '11 said:
I've addressed each of your points in bold, underlined text.
hippooo on 23 Sep '11 said:
Oh you mean this £15 ($25) Batman arkham asyslum?
http://www.onlive.co.uk/games/details/b ... e=trailers
And yes, I concede that OnLive has those very old AAA titles you mention available at 'just released' premium prices.
Yes, but can Microsoft/Sony stop us from playing a disc game?
eg, if I'm the last person in the world still playing Batman arkham asyslum in 3 years time, I'll STILL be able to play it on my PS3/Xbox360.
Will I still be able to play it on OnLive? Probably not, as they would've pulled it even though I've paid £15 for it.
Doesn't matter what the CEO promises us. If his company OnLive folds, I lose all access on all of the games I've bought on OnLive.
If Microsoft or Sony go under I can still play all my disc games. No online multiplayer, but it doesn't change the fact that I can still play my disc games.
No, nobody has heard of this game...I might've been more impressed with your point if you'd said Gears of War 3!
Honestly stunnedboy if you are going to slam somebody at least try and think through all your arguments before you post!
sabre2011 on 23 Sep '11 said:
Ok let me put it to you this way... Do you or have you ever subscribed to a game like World of warcraft? If so what happens when you stop paying the subscription? You can no longer play the game. Even though you still own the discs you can not play it any more. If the Wow servers ever go down again you are left with some nice shiny cup coasters. As for gears of war 3 that's just stupid to mention. Its a Microsoft exclusive to there console and will never be on any other platform. Some one in a previous post stated that no console games would ever be ported to Onlive I showed that they are indeed being ported and one of them is a Microsoft game. So you see I have thought my arguments through before I posted. You sir/Madam are clearly in a argumentative mood and you are not thinking clearly.
sabre2011 on 23 Sep '11 said:
Wrong ..I currently have onlive running on a 10 year old Compaq Pc.. Amd sempron single core, 2 gig pc 3200 ram, geforece 5200 256m video and win xp. I have it running with little to no problems.
sabre2011 on 23 Sep '11 said:
what? You will "pay for a console rather than some digital pixels"???ROFL. Just curious but what exactly do you think appears on the screen that you're xbox,ps3 is connected to? Magic pixy dust? lol
As for move and Kinect if that's your thing then good for you. I prefer a mouse and keyboard or joystick instead of jumping around in front of my screen lol. However I really am wondering if you comprehend the fact that you yourself sit and stare at "nerdish pixels" every time yo0u play a game. lol
Haters will be haters. lol
sabre2011 on 23 Sep '11 said:
Hey ..chill a little .. So much anger over a gaming service.
Yeah I understand people want to be able to play games offline and in many ways I feel that's because in the Uk you are still use to switching of the net so to speak. In the USA we are use to 24/7 net connections. Hell I cant remember the last time my connection was turned off.
What you need to realize is that many games are now requiring online connections to play. Diablo 3 for example will need an always on connection to be able to play. And that includes single player. Many companies are now following suite and unless you are online 24/7 you will not be able to play your games.
While I understand that people like to have a physical copy of the game you need to realize that those days are slowly and painfully coming to an end. Microsoft has shown an interest in Onlive and if you check the recent Major Nelson blog he reviews the service. There is even talk of a partnership between the 2 companies. When Onlive launched state side we had the same opinions that Uk'ers do. However after a year of operating those opinions are starting to change. Onlive is doing very well stateside. So much so that they are now able to afford expansion to your side of the pond.
Like it or not Onlive is here to stay.
The_KFD_Case on 23 Sep '11 said:
I see you decided to steer clear of my post in response to your post and instead set your sights on what might be described as "easier pickings".....
sabre2011 on 23 Sep '11 said:
Ok just for you I will respond to your post ...Just a FYI they may be slim pickings to you but I was being honest in those posts.
"No one has denied that those games are on offer in this thread from what I can tell. What has been mentioned is that it is questionable whether the latest and greatest games will released in a timely manner on OnLive. What has been pointed out is whether or not exclusive titles for the different consoles will make it to OnLive or not."
Ok here is the problem. Exclusive titles mean just that EXCLUSIVE. You will not see them on any other platform as they are surprisingly EXCLUSIVE. Deus Ex was release same day as Xbox/Ps3 was released, Space marines the same. Yes some games have been delayed for example the latest zombie game (cant remember its name). This is not the fault of Onlive this is the developers fault as stated by Onlive. The more popular the service becomes the more we will see releases on the same day as the rest of the platforms.
"Depends on which high street store you visit and what deals they are running. Also, online retail stores (ex. Amazon) often have prices that trounce the high street stores and at the very least some of the prices from OnLive ( I refer to one of Grolsch's earlier posts outlining prices for some of the AAA games mentioned above).
If you subscribe to the playpack option you get a automatic 30% of any game on top of any existing deal. Steam also has some excellent deals and yes Amazon is a place I use a lot for purchasing, no argument there as I agree with you. However Onlive does have some excellent deals and this can not be disputed
"As a PC gamer at heart who also enjoys his Xbox 360 I am well aware that I don't own the intellectual property of the games nor the consoles, but what I *do* own are the physical manifestations of these items (i.e. the console machine itself and the gaming discs). They are my property and no one has the legal right to remove them from me without my consent provided I haven't put them up as collateral for a loan, or obtained them through illegal means. Furthermore, as you so kindly help point out yet again, with the consoles and the PC platforms you can still play most of your games offline. That is not the case with OnLive, so if you think the current hardware platforms have a grip on the consumer then surely you also realize that their grip pales in comparison to the grip OnLive will have over the consumer, no?"
Ok let me explain again. You're legal rights to run any games are under control or the EULA ...End User License Agreement. You agree to this when you take of the wrapper to your shiny games or consoles. You may want to check some of those agreements. Sony for example will stop you from using there Online service if you do not agree to there new terms of agreement. Literally stop you from using your Ps3 online. Google it if you don't believe me. As stated in another post Diablo 3 will require a constant (24/7 connection) to be able to play it. Even the single player game will require a constant connection to be able to play it. Blizzard is not the only company to head down this path. Ubisoft and Ea games are now going to do the same thing. So without a always on connection your future discs will be useless. Actual physical media is slowly dying. Its sad but its true. I myself am a xbox fan. I date back to gaming in the early 80's and I have an attic full of games and old systems. Its tough to get round the idea of no longer holding the physical media but no matter if you like it or don't its going that way.
"That's all well and good, yet even if the CEO of OnLive signed a legally binding document that obligates him to do just that, how exactly will that happen should OnLive have a bad first year or two and not recover financially? The paying customer is up poo creek with nothing to show for it but the memories and with little or no genuinely effective recourse should OnLive be shuttered. I still have an original copy of FFVII sitting in my PC gaming collection. With an emulator program I could probably still play that game today ca. 1½ decades after it was released. It doesn't matter whether I actually do so or not, the point is that I have that option and it is at my discretion whether I exercise that option or not. It's not in the hands of someone else."
Onlive is now over a year old. They have some serious heavy weights investing in them including BT and HTC. They are currently experiencing rapid user growth as shown by various statistics online. The fact that the company just invested in a major expansion in the UK is not the actions of a struggling company. As for what happens if the company goes down hill I can say the same thing about all the other companies that are now requiring 24/7 connections to play single player games. I suppose you could say you will still be left with a nice shiny cup coaster.
"Sure, I can say "Microsoft" and I refuse to pay for LIVE yet I still get to enjoy all my Xbox 360 games on my console of choice regardless - this year, next year, the year after that, and the year after that, etc. Whether that will also hold true for OnLive remains to be seen and there are good reasons to be wary. Again, I refer to my response to point 2 regarding the often cheaper prices from various online stores, and even the occasional high street store."
I refer to all the responses I gave above.
" Speaking of honesty and being a fanboy, perhaps you should lead by example and acknowledge that lots of relevant and earnest concerns and observations have been raised in regards to OnLive's "service", and that your voracious attempts at berating those of us whom do not share your enthusiasm for what amounts to an undermining of our rights and independence come across as the efforts of someone who appears to be very much a fanboy of OnLive."
I have done just what your first line stated in all my posts. I covered all the concerns and relevant and earnest observations. As for
"and that your voracious attempts at berating those of us whom do not share your enthusiasm for what amounts to an undermining of our rights and independence come across as the efforts of someone who appears to be very much a fanboy of OnLive."
LOLOL Is anyone forcing you to use Onlive? No... I have already stated I use an Xbox and have been gaming for a very long time. Yes I like Onlive and yes I think its the future of gaming. but as for Undermining your rights lol.. You need to look at whats happened to your rights over the last few years. Your rights are already gone.
Ok I think I covered everything in your post :O)
I'm out of here as I am suppose to be working lol. KFD goodluck in the future and may your frags be plenty
Mmmmgrolsch on 23 Sep '11 said:
Way to go about steeing away from his actual point. I'm pretty sure KFD more than knows about his legal rights etc etc.
His point was this. He has his game he can play it whenever he wants. In 10years time he might decide he wants to replay some of his games which he can no one can stop him. I would take time to reply properly but I've got to go work.
Explain to me in what was does Onlive benefit me as a gamer? It doesn't save me money it makes me spend more on more expensive games.
Barca Azul on 23 Sep '11 said:
Wait till the ISP´s start charging for Data used! They are not going to continually increase bandwidth and speeds and not want to take a bit back for it!
For me cloud model is flawed from many angles, Cost of set up, cost of use, ISP cost, risk of hacking, loss of data you cant control, privacy, lack of competition in certain cases. For what, access anywhere (providing you can have some form of connection)? maybe, I dont want or need that!
Yellow6 on 23 Sep '11 said:
sabre2011 on 23 Sep '11 said:
Way to go for not getting my point. I said that game companies are switching to always on net connections. How exactly is KFD suppose to play his game 10 years from now if the authentication servers are no longer working?
How does Onlive not save you money?? Do you need to purchase an expensive console to use it? No .. Do you need to purchase an expensive Pc? no... You can use your existing equipment to play there games. There games are hell of a lot cheaper than most brick and mortar stores. Show me were I can get Tropico for $27? or Saints 3 for 30% off the release price? On top of all that when any upgrading is required Onlive handles it you carry on using your existing equipment there for saving oyu a boat load of money. And FYI before you say it needs a good pc I am running Onlive on a 10 year old single core Compaq Pc. And it runs well on it.
Look this is aimed at everyone who is concertizing me...
If you do not wish to use Onlive then so be it. I promise you I wont cry about it or get annoyed about it. I will say you are missing out on a great gaming service but hey that's my opinion and your decision. If you wish to stick with the console option then again that's your decision. I will carry on using Onlive and over time I am fairly confident that other companies will start to use a similar model. Gamestop is currently working on its own cloud distribution model and some of you might have heard of Gaika the EA funded service. Long story short cloud gaming is here and I really do not think its going away. You can either do what I have done and embrace it or you can ignore it for as long as possible. End of the day the only right you have left in most parts of this world is to make up your own mind.
WHITEyy118 on 23 Sep '11 said:
Sorry but what planet are you on?? Us British don't live in the 90's still.
budobear on 23 Sep '11 said:
On live is an interesting idea, after reading the discussions its all I can say....interesting (though I for one will always rather have an actual disk)
However there is one thing I have a problem with, the below quote
'Hopefully you can see from the user-interface that it's a little more fun to be a part of OnLive, in addition to getting the games in a frictionless way.'
I for one fail to see how it would be 'more fun' to be a part of Onlive.
How are we measuring 'fun'?
Is 'a little more fun' worth the worry of not having a stack of disks next to your console?
(there is a point I'm trying to make but I've lost it, as its lunch time)
laminated0 on 23 Sep '11 said:
Sabre2011 You work for ONlive dontchu?
sabre2011 on 23 Sep '11 said:
lol... I wish but sadly I do no think they would want to employ me
Also to the person who stated "what planet are you on" lol.. I am from the UK and trust me I am well aware of how bad net connections are in the UK.
WHITEyy118 on 23 Sep '11 said:
Regardless of speeds I referred to 24/7 connections. 9/10 people have bband so what's this about turning off connections? And if you're from the UK then what's with "in the UK you" and "in the USA we"?
sabre2011 on 23 Sep '11 said:
Ok allow me to explain.. I am from the Uk Northern Ireland to be precise, but I now live in the Usa. The original post was in response to someone who complained about the need to always have a 24/7 to use Onlive.
Just a little observation.. There seems to be an awful lot of Ps3 owners using these forums. I often wondered were you guys hide
WHITEyy118 on 23 Sep '11 said:
That still doesn't explain what you said about turning off connections. 9/10 of people, those with bband, will also not turn off their internet so the 24/7 connection isn't to be worried about. It's only connection speeds which is a problem.
Considering that the title has PS4 in it then you will get more PS3 owners replying don't you think?
quain-chi on 23 Sep '11 said:
Lots of people bitchin' about a service they probably havent used here, ive been using onlive since it launched in the usa over my cable boardband and it works perfectly fine and im definatly gonna get a microconsole to use it on my tv.
Maybe you should all sign up and try it, it is free and most games have half hour demos you can try.
gmcb007 on 23 Sep '11 said:
Looks like we have another new breed of fanboys....xbots and ps3tards unite to fight the Onlive enemy!
oOo ZOMBIE oOo on 23 Sep '11 said:
just in case the onlive team read this:"DO YOURSELVE'S A FAVOUR AND PULL OUT NOW, IT'S DOOMED TO FAILURE WE DO'NT WANT TO PAY FOR THING'S WE NEVER OWN!"
oOo ZOMBIE oOo on 23 Sep '11 said:
£70 for a controller.........SWIVEL!
https://www.onlive.co.uk/store/order
Warrior24_7 on 23 Sep '11 said:
1."Do gamers want to pay $500 for a PS4?"
Yep!
gingerbill on 23 Sep '11 said:
Onlive won't work simply because the internet isn't good enough. This is something that is certain to take off in 10-20 years time , not now , it will be along time before the UK has an infrastructure to support this kind of thing. I would argue that its needs the next step in internet technology before this can be used properly.
I think they can attract some customers who are desperate to play games they cant afford a PC for, but they would be more patient than me regarding connection issues and smooth gameplay. If people can't afford a decent PC they get a console , console's so cheap its just an easy choice.
The_KFD_Case on 23 Sep '11 said:
Right, I'm going to go through this point-by-point. It's going to be a wall of text, so anyone who decides to read this, brace yourselves.
1) So, where exactly is it again that people have been dishonest and lied about the games available on OnLive currently? You made the charge yet still fail to support it.
2) I agree that getting access to Deus Ex: Human Revolution for a quid is an excellent deal indeed. However, it appears to be time limited and the prices of many other games are laughable given what those same games can be purchased for (physical copies that you can keep and use to your heart's content without being reliant on a company or its servers barring online multi-player). The DE:HR deal is clearly an incentive to get people on board and while that in itself needn't be nefarious the prices of other older games in its repertoire suggests that we shouldn't expect that to be the standard by which OnLive will sell, excuse me, rent games to customers. If each game on OnLive only cost between 1-5 pounds for a month's access or more then it would go a long way to silencing the "pay-full-whack-for-a-glorified-rental" criticism that is currently justified against OnLive.
3) See, that's not the entire picture (oh, and Grolsch's is right, you do seem to have missed my point). The point I was making is that the physical copy of Batman: Arkham Asylum (one of the older AAA games OnLive is renting out) that I have sitting in my Xbox 360 collection will be available for me to play at any point between now and in the future provided I still have the game in workable condition, a working Xbox 360 (and TV), and electricity (and if I lose electricity for a prolonged period of time and I don't have a generator then I'll have far more pressing concerns than being able to play computer games). The point, to spell it out, is that I own the physical copy of that game, my Xbox 360, etc. (the physical items are not to be mistaken for owning the intellectual property - i.e. patents on these items) and no one can stop me from playing the game today or ten years from now. Not even if the developer and publisher of the game goes bust nor if any online servers go down. OnLive does not give you that independence/freedom. That in itself is a deal-breaker for me personally, and it is also why I flat out refuse to buy games that require constant internet connection unless it's a game that I know ahead of time is specifically designed for online play (i.e. Counter-Strike, L4D2, etc.).
Ubisoft still keep playing around with constant internet connectivity and it's bitten them in the ass in regards to the PC market (it hasn't stopped the pirates yet it has driven sales down from understandably upset customers). Ubisoft is the worst of the lot in that regard, although EA has used abhorrent DRM in the form of SecuROM in the past (and in some cases even now) - again, in such cases I refuse to buy their products and not only do they lose my purchase with that one game, they also run the risk of losing all other future purchases from me as I no longer trust them since they clearly don't trust me. In the long term they end up losing a lot of money from me and I'm just one customer - there are many others who feel and think in similar circles on such matters.
Also, in some countries - Germany, if I'm not mistaken - you can not be held legally accountable to a contract for a product or service if you haven't had the opportunity to read it before you purchase the good or service. That effectively renders EULAs null and void on the spot because you don't get to read them until after you've broken the seal on the product (and many stores will not let you return software goods where the seal is broken). EULAs, TOS, etc. are all written very impressively to give the impression that they are the actual law. They are not. Any one can write anything in judicial language to make it seem authoritative but that doesn't automatically make it thus. Some contracts have clauses that violate actual national law. Sadly until someone points that out and challenges it in a court of law, or threatens to take the offending party to court, many companies will try to get away with it. The point here: Don't believe that you are obligated to do everything a company demands in scary-looking-big-word-documents. Oh, and it still doesn't prevent me from playing the games I own physically, at least not in single player campaigns (which are what I prefer).
4) Traditionally in the contemporary business world many start-up businesses don't make it past the first two years. OnLive is a year old you say? Good for them, but it's far from enough to guarantee they'll be around in the longer term and should that happen, be it short term or long term, then those who have paid to rent games will have nothing to show for their money. That prospect is an abysmal return-on-investment (ROI).
As for "all the other companies that are now requiring 24/7 connections to play single player games," that's just not accurate. Not all other companies require 24/7 online connectivity to play their single player games; even a company like Ubisoft which floated this atrocious business model of constant connectivity required to play their games doesn't use it in all of its games any more. The public backlash has been fierce and I suspect it has given some other companies pause.
5) I'll refer to my previous points as well then, and I'll add a concrete example that proves that OnLive offers worse prices to rent a game than at least one other place does where you buy and get to keep the physical copy of the same game. Ex. "Homefront". OnLive sells it for $29.99 US dollars. On the open currency market as of right now that converts in to £19.41 pound sterling. I can buy the same game in new condition from Amazon.co.uk for £9.60 (Xbox 360) and for £7.94 (PC - just to keep the comparison to OnLive's PC based gaming servers completely fair). There's no way around it: As things stand right now, OnLive offers an overpriced and inferior service to all of those who already own a console and/or a half-decent gaming PC.
Fair point, one of the OnLive fellows interviewed mentioned that they expect to become a bigger factor over the next five years when people decide whether to buy a new console/PC or not, yet here again, referring to the prices and looking at the expected long term forecasts, as well as trade-in value for console games at least, even though buying a new console may require a larger upfront capital investment, over a period of several years it will likely not only be about the same cost that an OnLive user buying the same or similar games incurs, it may actually end up being better value since the games can be traded-in or re-sold and the owner of the physical games will always have the option of playing them at his/her discretion. The OnLive user most likely won't based on OnLive's representatives own words....And that's without even bringing up the reality that ISP providers are already now capping data usage (thus increasing costs if you have a heavy data usage which gaming is) and in the US no less! A place where consumption and customer perks and "freebies" have long been superior to the offerings the same companies and services offer the European markets.
6) You may think, even believe, you've covered all concerns about OnLive. Perhaps in your mind you have yet I can assure you that as someone with those concerns your responses have been anything but convincing. If anything it seems you've tried to stamp out the genuine and justified concerns with claims of "it's the future, get used to it, etc." Yet that doesn't actually address the concerns nor demonstrate how customers are better off with choosing OnLive over more traditional console/PC platforms, and there is likely a reason for that: It's because we aren't better off. Thus you can't demonstrate that we are.
7) On that we do agree; I'm not being forced to use OnLive and hence I choose not to use it. I also agree that (sadly) many of our customer rights have been eroded. Unlike you, however, I do not think that warrants an apathetic response whereby one just rolls over and takes it from unscrupulous companies. On the contrary, I find it is all the more reason to resist and actively fight back. If you want to be defeatist and an apologist for them then that is your choice. I will not stand with you.
P.S. Thanks! You too, although I prefer single player campaigns.
kreemkrackers on 23 Sep '11 said:
I have now tried Onlive 3 separate days and it is glitchy as hell. I am willing to accept that this is somehow down to my internet connection or whatever, but each time I tested Onlive, I then closed it and did a broadband speedcheck. I got a consistent 13gb+ (I'm on Virgin Fibre optic 20mb). If I get a break-up every 10 secs or so, what chance has anyone else got?
If there is a way for me to get the reported amazing performance out of this thing, then someone please tell me so that I can have a better opinion of Onlive, because right now, I think it is crap in comparison to what we already have.
ps3deo on 23 Sep '11 said:
I say I would pay the $500. There's just something I don't like about OnLive. It just hasn't grown on me. There's no comparison between purchasing a next generation console and using OnLive, I don't see how one could be made. I was reading this article http://playstation4.net/sonys-guide-to- ... ion-4-1364 and it was saying the PS4 would have DVR capabilities. I mean that alone would make the $500 purchase worth it. Truth be told I don't think it would even cost $500 this time around. I think Sony has learned their lesson and will come out with a launch price of $299 and $399. I am also tired of hearing about there is more room to grow with current consoles. This is always said. Friggin close the gap and reach that growth point you're talking about! We want better graphics and higher framerates. Period!
CJG on 23 Sep '11 said:
You can't play Uncharted, LBP, Killzone, GoW, Gears, Alan Wake, Halo, GT5, Forza, Fable, or countless others with Onlive. Does Onlive even have any exclusive games to offer? What about people with internet caps or people with 6mbps or lower speed? You need 6 just to play in 720p, and if you have another computer on the net say goodbye to that. Trash talking the competition when you're so far behind it's not even funny.
Mmmmgrolsch on 24 Sep '11 said:
Heres another nail in Onlives coffin, if you can fit anymore nails in there
Straight from the horses mouth. CVG why are you not warning anyone about all these serious issues?????
Windowlicker79 on 24 Sep '11 said:
Yeah that's right. You don't need to have a decent GPU or even a particularly powerful PC. All the processing is done at their end and all your PC has to do is receive the live video feed.
In fact you don't even need a PC! You can just get the home "console".
http://news.cnet.com/i/bto/20090323/090313_redeemer_hero_shot1_onwhite_610x471.jpg
Notice how small it is? There's no onboard processing. All it does is receive the feed from OnLive.
You can even run it on an iPad!
http://www.maclife.com/files/ss-onlive_0.jpeg
Welsh Jester on 24 Sep '11 said:
You can play PC games on your PSP as well with the video receiver app, all it's doing is sending you footage of a game, you press buttons which is sent to the server, you receive image back of what you pressed..
Hmm not intereted in OnLive, my PC can do a whole lot more and i actually own all the components where you don't with this.
Haven't seen a mention of online gaming with OnLive as well, i would imagine it would be very laggy since you wait for footage, send to server, then that server needs to connect to the net to send your input and then send the data back to you. sounds like fail to me.. I bet there is at least 40-50 MS (not including your own screen or personal ping to ISP) refresh between everything.
itsshinzo on 24 Sep '11 said:
I read somewhere that the faster internet you have the better the graphics get. Not sure if that's supposed to be the case but it totally isn't.
I have BT fibre optic and download at around 30mbs yet the graphics on this are still horrible. It's like watching an old VHS tape that's been watched over 9000 times already.
I'll stick to Steam thanks. Even though Steam doesn't have great Facebook connectivity like OnLive does (Which we all know is what EVERY gamer in the world wants) I still prefer it.
turricantg on 24 Sep '11 said:
Slight problem with this......
Its called broadband speed....And since it requires a fast online connection I think this will stuff it up for most people who like to try it.
I live in a small village where as you can guess the speed is very slow and I download Onlive with great interest and of course was not told until I wanted to play a demo that my connection was too slow.
I think its a great idea and one of which will work if speeds are greatly upgraded by everyone's fav company BT...Who pull the strings on this.
Lets hope its sooner rather than later before it kills this off.
Happy Gaming!!
Tris
verynaughtyboy on 24 Sep '11 said:
Just the other day I decided to get my Gamecube out and play Twighlight Princess. I already paid for it, I own it and I can go back to it whenever I like. Same goes for all my games across all the platforms I own. Onlive just can't offer me what I want and that's the bottom line as far as I'm concerned.
03b2wgm on 24 Sep '11 said:
I honestly don't feel there's any problem. Sure, when I've tried it, because of my internet speeds, I've sacrificed graphical quality for a lag free experience. But that's okay, because it's still bloody brilliant in my opinion.
Sure, the internet speeds available aren't up to scratch at the moment, and until such a time everyone has 20+mb/s not everyone will be able to enjoy a quality experience.
Honestly, there's NO HARM at all in trying it out, just to see. You can create an account and begin playing a demo (as in 30 minutes of gameplay) and then delete it off your computer forever after that. It literally takes a few minutes to make an account and install OnLive on your PC/Mac. I imagine a lot of people here haven't even tried OnLive; they're just hating on something when they don't even know what it's really like. It's like saying "I hate Battlefield" when I haven't even played Battlefield (which I haven't). As such, it's not really fair for me to judge Battlefield.
Give it go.
humanhand on 24 Sep '11 said:
Well done, and said The_KFD_Case.
ps3TheMagicNumba on 24 Sep '11 said:
I like the idea in principle but haven't really read up on it as much as I could've. Opinion seems divided but I've also noticed that many of the naysayers appear to be butthurt PC elitists. Might have to try the demo tonight...
Gaseous Snake on 24 Sep '11 said:
Okay, besides agreeing completely with KFD, I feel I need to throw in my two cents:
My mum plays a certain Facebook browser game, which basically loads a new page every click. She used to play it about as much as I played my PS3 whilst in the summer holiday. Now then, we're on Sky's 20Mb, unlimited download package, and we got a massive bill for breaching the fair usage policy of said unlimited downloads. She's since stopped playing it and we've had no charges since.
Here's my point; That was a browser game. Very simple, very low memory usage. OnLive streams entire games (some of which come close to filling a 50GB Blu-Ray). Correct me if I'm wrong (don't, I won't come back here to read it, but someone else can argue my case if they want), but that will hike up a gargantuan amount in downloads, and lead to stupidly high bills.
Also, @ Sabre2011; your behaviour is alarmingly similar to that of a fanboy, and everyone can see that. Give it up man.
Hehe, I just had a funny thought; I can't remember the Wii U's release date, but wouldn't it be funny if that and OnLive had the silliest console war ever? I mean, they're both awful attempts of making a console which sells purely by marketing.
This is the first comment I've made in an age because it's the last time I'm coming here. I'm worked out with college, so any free time will be spent on pick-up-and-play games (yes, I'm gonna buy COD). Not that anybody cares like. Not even sure I care. Wonder what's for tea?
But I digress. OnLive's s**te, fanboys suck, chicken tastes great. Toodles!
Padua on 24 Sep '11 said:
I just tried Batman Arkham Asylum on OnLive from my bog average PC with crappy video card and it was a good experience. I noticed the most lag from the menus with a flickering mouse but generally my free trial was without hitch. Sure it isn't perfect yet but it is usable. (I have a Virgin Media 50Mb connection btw) I LOVE how there is no install, patching and just instant play
I know some people can't do without physical copies but AppStores have changed how a great many people buy entertainment. I didn't own anything I bought on my iPhone. I have since moved to Android leaving behind all my goodies
Did I lose sleep over it... nope! 
I can see cloud gaming not only suceeding but being embraced by Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo. It is going to be a great day for gamers when they no longer need to worry about their hardware getting old.
Now the thing which has just blown me away is my downloading the Onlive Player for my Android phone (Samsung Galaxy S2)
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthr ... ?t=1138194
Although you can't play on your phone (you can on tablets) you are able to browse media and see things like other people playing games (Arena) and see "brag" videos - saw some dude in DEUS EX score a basket by bouncing the ball off a building.
Come on fellow gamers - don't be so dismissive of this technology. Yes it isn't perfect yet but I for one am excited about where this is going to go and can see Cloud Gaming having a bright future
Windowlicker79 on 24 Sep '11 said:
I'm correcting you because you are wrong.
No actual game data is sent to the console or your PC. Think of it more like they are running the game on their big uber-computer and you are just streaming a video feed and controlling the game remotely. This is how it runs on a "console" that looks like a very small modem. All it does is receive a video/audio stream and send controller data. It will not use much more data that streaming HD video from Youtube.
Your example of your Mum playing a browser based game that loads a new page with every click sounds very odd. What game was it? Even if it did load a new webpage every time it was clicked, she would have had to be playing it pretty much continuously day and night to break their fair usage policy, which leads me nicely to another thing that strikes me as extremely suspicious. Sky doesn't actually have a "download limit" or any data management in place on its main services, only on its most basic package.
I think you just made it all up.
tekplyrx on 25 Sep '11 said:
Umm.. just my two cents but isn't the 'console' or 'modem' actually downloading/uploading the video and game input to and from the onlive servers? Either way u look at it data is being transferred but the question now boils down to how much data is actually being transferred? In any case I completely agree with those having gripes with the service, there's too many conditions attached which u simply don't worry about with physical/offline capable games./. some dweebs here are mentioning games like diablo 3 and saying most games now require an always on online connection which is absolutely rubbish. What's the percentage of such games to those that let u play offline? Simple truth is unless the internet providers decide to give their subscribers high internet bandwidth at low costs these onlive guys are gonna massively fail.
Windowlicker79 on 25 Sep '11 said:
Am I really the only person who understands how this works??
There is NO processing done at the users end. The video and audio data is streamed from OnLive just like a Youtube video or Spotify audio track. They use clever compression algorithms to get the data down to a size that is manageable. Its not like you download a 10gb game file whilst you're playing the game. Its not even anywhere near that.
Most ISPs already offer a service that is more than suitable. All you need to do is make sure you have a connection speed that will give a stable service.
manky on 25 Sep '11 said:
10/10 CVG - you've successfully managed to get the majority of a section of your readership that are classed as 'retards' to post in this thread.
Some bloke thinks the English turn off their internet connections... what? Not even going to go there.
Another thinks that OnLives video compression isn't good enough... what? Have you actually tried it. I was on beta and it works fine and that was from US servers.
Another thinks that internet speeds are not going to be fast enough for 10 - 20 years... what? Maybe she hasn't heard of FTTC that BT is rolling out and most exchanges will be ready for 2012. Mine at the end of 2011 and even though I'm miles from the exchange I'll be guaranteed 30mb down/7-10mb up. Even now on ADSL2+ I get 14mb and 26ms pings to most sites.
http://www.openreach.co.uk/future_exchanges_Excel
I've got an idea. I you don't like it don't use it. Until you have, keep your dumb ass malformed opinions in your family where your dadda can educate you with his belt. Yee haa.
lordirongut on 25 Sep '11 said:
That's not entirely accurate. When you watch a YouTube video, you download the video file to your temporary internet files. OnLive would be a video stream in the same way as a YouTube video (at 720p at that), so it would use a huge amount of bandwidth and data. Consider that the average 480p, 4-minute YouTube video clocks in at around 30mb (based on an Epic Meal Time video at 4:14 seconds, downloaded in FLV which is the format that YouTube streams in), and you could see that the download allowance could add up pretty quickly.
Mmmmgrolsch on 25 Sep '11 said:
Bottom line is that Onlive doesn't benefit gamers in anyway. Only the complete and utter dicks that have come in here talking utter s**t believe that Onlive is a good thing for anyone.
Onlive Fanboys are going to be the most annoying wankers on the net.
lordirongut on 25 Sep '11 said:
All four of them?
03b2wgm on 25 Sep '11 said:
Onlive Haters are going to be the most annoying wankers on the net.
Padua on 25 Sep '11 said:
You don't need to be a "fanboy" to see the potential and benefit in this technology.
I bought Batman: Arkham Asylum for £1 - unlimited play (UK special offer for first game) and am really enjoying it.
Who knows it might even encourage me to get it on a console one day although I see no reason to at the moment - it plays just fine on Onlive.
Brag and Arena are brilliant ideas. I had someone peeking into my game last night - they even have an option to give a thumbs up or down too although they did neither
Come on - even if you think the lag sucks - the 30 minute free play trials are a brilliant way to experiment with games
tekplyrx on 25 Sep '11 said:
Errmm.. no sir apparently you do not understand HOW it works. Have a look at lordirongut's response.
Mmmmgrolsch on 25 Sep '11 said:
I will give you that £1 to rent any game for the 1st time is a great deal. I say rent because you can't buy games, they are only accessible for a limited time.
And yes it is useful for the free 30min trials which no doubt I will use. If it ever works that is.
3 hours and still can't get on. Yes this is the future
http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu1/Mmmmgrolsch/Onlive.jpg
The_KFD_Case on 25 Sep '11 said:
Pretty much.
The_KFD_Case on 25 Sep '11 said:
ps3TheMagicNumba on 25 Sep '11 said:
Another important point which seems to have escaped most is the reduced potential for hardware failure with OnLive. No RRODesque scandals for them!
gmcb007 on 25 Sep '11 said:
Or PSN downtime
The_KFD_Case on 25 Sep '11 said:
Just a complete loss of everything once the internet connection goes down, or a few years down the road when the game you paid for is no longer available in OnLive's game library. The future indeed.
CJG on 25 Sep '11 said:
SavageEvil on 26 Sep '11 said:
Funny, I posted days ago and came back to find the ODF running loose in here.
No one is side stepping the upsides to Online, thing is those things aren't as important as the cons of the service to the vested gamer. I, like many gamers love to own whatever I purchase. Having the physical media to do with as I please is always a good feeling, I still have SNES, Saturn, Xbox, PS2 and a whole slew of games for them all, see that damn near 20 years and I can still pull out the old saturn and pop in guardian heroes and play for a spell. This is what Onlive is going to take away from those who use it, it makes your purchase disposable by putting a time limit on it. Digital media for some reason depreciates faster than any other consumable, why is that? 3 year limit on games from release, are you serious? I still own some launch PS3 games from 5 years ago, lol. People are getting too used to digital purchases, it's becoming ridiculous. I remember before Circuit City folded, I used to be able to walk into a store and actually sift through PC software section, not anymore. Everything is digital and that middleman is being cut out and well you see what happened to CC, gone under and now is owner by TigerDirect who sell online using CC online web store.
While you might think it is the "future" I think it is a loss of control on the consumers' side and many consumers are blinded by the convenience of downloading it straight to the pc, while it is very convenient it also removes your ability to have the hard copy on hand in case of issues like the internet being down and your PC having to be restored to factory settings. Ease of use when purchasing and getting it to your machine, but after that one time thing, you are left with open ended problems that can arise from not having physical media on hand.
Not sure about you, but going all digital will just bite you in the ass anyway. Someone spouted some crap about paying for a P2P game and how Onlive is akin to that, well you are partly correct. But incredibly shortsighted, there are far more games that do not require you to P2P, or for that matter even have an internet connection. Only MP games require internet connection but they don't require you to pay anything other than purchase price of the game. If you're on PC and your game has ability to have private servers you and your community can enjoy the game for years online...think about that one.
I don't have any real qualms with Onlive, I just don't like the idea of losing more of my purchasing rights. Loss of physical media is huge in my eyes, in fact i will continue to use consoles until they decide to go all digital. Then I will just rent because I am in no way buying digital anything, if I can't rent then I do have a back log of old games to remind me when gaming was good and old fashioned. Too much technology can be a bad thing, companies are getting a bit greedy, you didn't find it odd that Deus Ex was offered on Onlive for such a low price....pubs are quick to reap as much money as they can from consumers. mark my words this is beginning of the end for our good old days of gaming. Slowly but surely the march starts with this.
mpeg3s on 26 Sep '11 said:
This is why ONLIVE sucks:
1. ONLINE is nothing more than a PC Server rental service
2. You're getting minimum PC graphics because of high compressions with Server sharing
3. You're NEVER going to get PC AAA titles like Diable 3, WOW, Star Wars Republic, Guild Wars 2, DC Universe ETC.
So try ONLIVE, but buying is not wise!
Dannyb0yUK on 26 Sep '11 said:
I want a potential return on my investment. I can sell my console and physical games once I am done with them (and how many games do people actually keep coming back to? I for one can say that probably 3/4 of the games I buy will end up sitting on my shelf depreciating, until it hits that sub-£10 region and becomes so worthless that you figure you may as well keep it. Quite frankly, if you want me to go out and pay £30-40 for a game that I'm done with in 2-3 weeks (which is often the case), then don't be surprised when I want to make some of that money back.
OnLive completely negates this. All money you pay into OnLive is something you'll never see a return on, yet you are essentially expected to pay the prices that you're paying for physical products. The rental thing can be done via Lovefilm or Blockbusters- except you can get your achievements/trophies that way round. I guess OnLive could thrive as a rental based service, but would I buy full playpasses for games at £30+? Never. I love the idea behind the technology and it's genuinely impressive that it works as well as it does- but it's not viable to me as a frugal gamer who plays many different titles. It might work better for the sorts of gamers who just buy FIFA and COD each year, and are actually satisfied to play those to death all year round!
MRHONGKONGDAVE on 26 Sep '11 said:
Firstly before seeming to defend OnLive I would like to point out that I do not intend to buy it!!!!
I've have read the previous articles and comments and would like to enlighten some of the posters!
OnLive as a service is completely free. If you have a PC you can dowlonad the OS and run it from there.
The £69 console is only needed if you want to play on your tv and don't know how to use your pc this way.
There is no obligatory subscription fee. If you wish to have access to 100+ older games to play you can subscribe for £6.99 per month but you do not have to.
BT are running a free 3 month access to the 100+ game pack if you sign up with them.
Games start at £1.99 for older titles with brand new releases being similar in price to console game prices.
Games are also available to rent at similar prices to Blockbuster and Love Film.
There is an introductory offer that enables early adopters to purchase a full new release title for just £1. Deus Ex: Human Evolution has been widely publicised.
Unfortunately for On-Live not matter what they say there is no way to stream user controlled HD content in real time under 100mb connection and really 200mb is the standard when streaming accross a home network so cannot see it achievable at 5mbps!!!
Sorry OnLive but even though it all sounds good apart from the last point I've made, you'll note that without the last point being achieved it's a non-starter for all serious gamers on planet earth!!!!!
Goodbye.
ps3TheMagicNumba on 26 Sep '11 said:
Being sincere for a moment, I don't understand the hate OnLive seems to be getting...
I'm currently without a PS3. I sold mine a few months back as my flatmate at the time had two (one came free with his phone contract) and he had put the spare one in the lounge. He would typically play the one in his room and I would typically play in the lounge due to the extra comfort. Hence, I thought it better to sell my PS3 and put the money towards another platform rather than have three PS3's in the house, one of which would be barely used.
The end result is that I was considering investing in another system but am now also going to have a good hard look into OnLive before proceeding...
I've read that the image can be a tiny bit muddy at times when compared to a PC running through a monitor but I've also read that despite this it generally looks better than current consoles as it is competing with the PC version. My reasoning is that if I run it through a telly like I would my PS3 then it will look better than the current consoles and the slight difference in resolution which the PC offers becomes a moot point.
So basically, I'm left with the choice of spending several hundred £ on a console or spending £100ish for something which offers better graphics and a different catalogue of games, some of which I've never had the chance to play on PS3.
Obviously, I will be trying the trial first. However, as somebody who mainly loves fps games and isn't particularly bothered about going back to oldies (apart from the odd emulator on my PC/phone) I don't really care if I can't physically keep the games. I will mainly be playing 2-3 online shooters at maximum at most times and then will move onto other newer ones as and when I get bored. For this reason OnLive sounds like a serious consideration for me.
Mmmmgrolsch on 26 Sep '11 said:
Sorry but I don't know where you found that information in your first paragraph. Seriously the graphics look nowhere near as good as consoles, let alone better
I have a 20Mb connection 20ms ping on average and lowest speed clocked is 17.65Mb down and 0.6Mb up.
As for your 2nd paragraph. Do you buy games regularly? Because if you buy on average 10 games a year you could easily pay for a new console with the savings before 2yrs are even up then continue saving s**t loads more.
ps3TheMagicNumba on 26 Sep '11 said:
Forget where I read the graphics comment (I read numerous reviews) but they basically said that the visuals were a bit murkier than PC but still better than current consoles as it was more comparable to the PC build - which is now years ahead of the current consoles. They said it was a much more detailed picture but just slightly more compressed than a good PC through a monitor.
I was starting to think maybe it all sounds to good to be true (normally the case!) but then I read the post higher up this page that states you only have to pay the premium if you want to use it on a telly. Is that seriously saying that I could get the performance of a decent PC on my aging laptop without subscribing? That I could enjoy a pretty decent gaming experience just by paying for the game I want to play?
If so, that does sound a pretty good option now I'm a much less dedicated gamer than I used to be...
ps3TheMagicNumba on 26 Sep '11 said:
...i've also got blistering 50mb broadband and no serious bandwidth competitors - just two housemates who use their laptops for email, word processing, etc, and aren't into gaming.
I've also been told I can upgrade to 100mb here so surely should be ok for fairly high resolution streaming.
Sounds pretty good tbh to be able to get decent gaming performance on my crappy laptop without having to buy hardware or subscribe to anything. Think I'm gonna have to get on the trial tomorrow morn and settle this once and for all.
Mmmmgrolsch on 26 Sep '11 said:
Then try it out and see for yourself. The picture quality is not good at all, it looks rather washed out and lots of jaggies and suffers more under faster gameplay types like racing games. It really is not as good as consoles, its so far off being as good. How anyone can say it is comparable to PC I have no idea.
The graphics look a lot sharper in slow paced games though but still no match for what your console can do with a nice clean crisp image on a HD tv.
dangermou5e on 26 Sep '11 said:
Gets my 13year old dreamcast out which is no longer supported, oh look I can still play all of my games even though sega no longer make them. Your move Onlive..
Soviet1918 on 26 Sep '11 said:
Reading most of these comments and to use a not very nice term but fits "so i apologise now for any offence" Onlive would be classed as a still born.
snake2011 on 27 Sep '11 said:
much rather pay for the console can you imagine E3 without the console release & the great games the big guys make this service will never have what a console does.
sabre2011 on 27 Sep '11 said:
Ponders Patiently over why anyone would want to play an old system .... However I wait till his Dreamcast breaks down and dies and oh look your games are useless. . Your move Shiny disc holders.
lordirongut on 27 Sep '11 said:
...because old games are frequently better or there might be some games he hasn't played yet. And if his Dreamcast breaks another is all of £20 on eBay and, oh look, all his games work again! If OnLive goes bankrupt then basically the only way to keep your games on that is to bail out OnLive yourself...
The_KFD_Case on 27 Sep '11 said:
Welcome to the wonderful modern world of mass producing industry! (In other words, there are stockpiles for a tremendous amount of items, and then there are the trading sites where collectors amongst others go.)
You know, for someone who is on a high about "the wave of the future" and internet connectivity you really don't seem to have thought some of these things through.
The_KFD_Case on 27 Sep '11 said:
This.
Swashy on 27 Sep '11 said:
Most gamers would rather have a console and games theres nothing like bringing home that new console unwrapping it setting it up with that tiggly feeling and that smell of a new game in other words onlive is a load of b*****ks just another tit trying to mess up the gaming world just p'off and mind your bussiness us gamers like a console not your s**tty little onlive CRAP!
Swashy on 27 Sep '11 said:
Itotal agree with your blog to much tech is a bad thing i still own some of my old consoles and games good memories of the good ol' days of gaming.
gmcb007 on 27 Sep '11 said:
Well everything you ever said here is invalid now that you said a completely retarded thing. Now p**s off to an OnLive Fourm if you want to kiss their ass. Oh, and while you're there look up 'retro gamer'' and you'll soon see why your fanboy comment is so bad.
ps3TheMagicNumba on 27 Sep '11 said:
I prefer to play retro games on my phone or a handheld device - perfect for the train.
When playing modern fps games (my main poison) three years is more than enough for me to play the game to satisfaction. I have too many other interests to justify playing more than 2-3 shooters at once. I don‘t need access to every game I‘ve ever played, I‘m not some greedy, obsessive recluse lol.
Being able to play UT3 on my crappy laptop for less than a tenner and have it look better than the console versions...what‘s not to like?
Diomedes1977 on 27 Sep '11 said:
When I buy a game I want to be able to play it whenever I want, be it right now or two years later in a rainy day.And wherever I am, has it internet conection or not. With your offer I could only play online depending on if you arent exceeding capacity, and only the games you offer at that given moment.
So sorry Onlive, but I would rather pay the 500 euros and the games and REALLY OWN my games.
solamon77 on 27 Sep '11 said:
This way of playing games isn't going to be even considered by people until they start landing some good exclusive games.
Mmmmgrolsch on 27 Sep '11 said:
That guy is a idiot.
gmcb007 on 27 Sep '11 said:
Of course he is! He's an OnLive fanboy!
The_KFD_Case on 27 Sep '11 said:
Does that mean you're just some obnoxious, self-absorbed, half-wit cretin with the attention span of an ADHD child then? If you're going to throw personal attacks around expect to be treated thus in kind.
ps3TheMagicNumba on 27 Sep '11 said:
Lol, I wasn‘t aiming that comment at anybody in particular. Was just being a little facetious.
Fair enough if people want to keep their hardware - I‘m the same with musical equipment, no software beats a fat VA synth.
Just that people seem to be forgetting that it will cost them a few hundred quid to be able to play that game for ever...
The_KFD_Case on 28 Sep '11 said:
Fair enough to the first two sentences. In response to the third sentence I'll once more point out that provided you buy approximately the same amount and same-or-similarly-priced games over a few years on OnLive as you might have on the PC or one of the console platforms, and you'll end up spending a similar amount of money. Difference being that you will have nothing to show for it. Now, maybe you're fine with that - and it is your money to spend (blow) - but it isn't rocket science figuring out that having something that can still be used, even bartered or sold, after you've paid for it will, as a general rule-of-thumb, be a far better return of investment to the customer....If there is such a strong personal urge not to have clutter build up in the home it is possible to sell, donate or throw away the hardware and physical game discs - an option you do not have with OnLive. That is a hugely negative factor to me even though I don't foresee hawking my Xbox 360 nor my PC on the private market.
What I find absolutely unacceptable, however, is the fact that a company will have full control over how, when, where, and how much I pay in order to play one or more games. That control/power is not something I am prepared to surrender to them. Ever.
LordVonPS3 on 28 Sep '11 said:
Just tried OnLive. Quite liked it. Visuals are a bit blurrier than I'm used to but frame rate seemed a fairly solid 30. Played NBA 2K11 and Mafia II for a bit before spectating other people playing other games like Just Cause 2, Virtua Tennis 2009 and Bioshock. All good. Did take a quick look at someone playing Split Second and that didn't pan out so well.
If OnLive can get their prices right down and if some really great games become available - then I could see this becoming extremely popular.
Don't be surprised if XBox Live incorporates 'OnLive' style gaming next gen... There's no reason that XBox 3 / PS4 can't do this AS WELL.
sabre2011 on 28 Sep '11 said:
Microsoft is already taking a nice long look at Onlive. Major Nelson recently reviewed the service on his blog and even he was impressed. What cloud gaming needs is good competition to help keep prices down. I really do not care about actually holding a physical copy of a game or downloading 20 gig game onto my Pc. I would rather just start up an app and play some games. I will admit I am a casual player but Onlive is perfect for me. No expensive consoles to purchase no trips to the store just switch on and play. Trust me I am not the only one that thinks this way. Interesting thing to watch will be how Microsoft and Sony play this. I predict the next gen consoles will have something similar to Onlive on them as more and more companies move to what is a virtually pirate less media format.
ps3TheMagicNumba on 28 Sep '11 said:
As KFD points out, it may/will cost more to use OnLive if a comparable number of games are bought. However, in my current situation I am seriously interested if it is at all decent.
My only gaming device at the moment is my LG Optimus and whilst I do miss playing fps games part of my initial reason for selling my PS3 was the fact that it was too big a distraction from my training - since I have sold it I spend at least 75% more time on my punchbag.
Hence, I am in a difficult situation. Now I‘ve got myself back in shape and in a routine I think I‘m ready to integrate a bit of gaming again. However, there is also the possibility that it will be too much of a distraction and I will sell it again as has already happened with two PS3‘s and a 360 in the last couple of years.
Being able to pay for a game and play it with graphics exceeding that of the current generation of consoles sounds too good to be true! I only have time for a few shooters and would rather immerse myself in one game than suck at several.
Just can‘t help but think that OnLive is the most sensible option for somebody like myself who doesn‘t want to risk wasting hundreds on a console that may be sold within a few months. I can get my fix for the price of a single game and if I want to knock it on the head then I‘ve lost very little. As I said before I have historically only played a few fps at any one time - e.g. I racked up nearly 500 hours on MAG!
Just hoping it will satisfy my needs and not disappoint - I‘m pretty hopeful at the moment!
03b2wgm on 28 Sep '11 said:
I've tried the service out (for free, tried a few demos and stuff) and it DOES work, even though obviously because my internet is not that good, the picture quality is not as good as I would like. I'd say it's sub-N64 quality if I'm being honest, but that's the tradeoff for getting a lag free experience.
I'm sure this will take off, and there are quite a number of good games on offer (Bioshock, for example), but as of yet, I think I'll give it a miss. I'm a bit wary of investing in a service so soon after it's been released over here. I will probably wait a few months (maybe until next year) and hope my internet is better by then or something so I can enjoy better looking games.
I really don't understand all the hate to be honest. It's GOING to happen whether you like it or not. The increased shift to digital distribution and cloud gaming is undeniable. Whether you like it or not, you only have to look at services such as Steam, to see how many people enjoy digital copies of their games, and that having a physical copy isn't really that important. A lot of people are saying "what if OnLive fails and I lose all my games?" etc. but the same applies to any service (Steam for example).
One day, cloud gaming will be the norm, and we'll all look back and look at a time when we used cartridges and discs and all this other physical media and wonder how we coped. Maybe.
Just give it time.
Soviet1918 on 28 Sep '11 said:
Thats a bl**dy big maybe i wouldnt put money on it,
And what happens if you dont have broadband, i do but many dont.
The day they go digital only is the day i say goodbye to consoles,
& i suspect im not alone.
The_KFD_Case on 29 Sep '11 said:
Mr. MagicNumba....That was an entirely lucid, coherent and thought out argument as to why OnLive may suit your gaming interest. While it has not changed my position on the issue, I now have far more respect for you and your position. Good luck with OnLive - I do hope it ends up meeting your expectations, even surpassing them.
(...even as I hope for the cloud gaming concept to at best only end up occupying a niche market, if not die out entirely.)
The_KFD_Case on 29 Sep '11 said:
The points you raise have already been addressed and repudiated several times in this thread.
1) No, it's not a "given" that this will take off. OnLive may fail - if it does perhaps another company or companies will pick up the effort. Perhaps not. See, if the posters that have posted on here are in any way representative of the "tuned-in" gaming community then OnLive simply won't gain enough traction with the core audience (which also spends the most money per person on gaming, one imagines). That can kill a company. It wouldn't be the first time a technologically neat idea has been abandoned (ex. DAT tapes, the Sega Dreamcast outdone by the technically inferior PS1, etc.).
2) There may well be increased sales in digital distribution, yet retail sales are far from dead. There are pros and cons to both. At some point we reach a situation where it becomes practical, even a necessity, to be able to examine a good in person before purchasing it. Online/digital distribution can not cover this (and retail stores have a hard time competing with their prices and so people can, and do, go to the retail stores to examine the good(s) before going back home and ordering the same item cheaper online). It is not a good thing for the public if retail stores die out, just as it wouldn't be good for us if all online stores died out.
3) Steam is not the same thing as OnLive. With Steam you actually download the game data and store it on your hard drive, and you can play those installed games on-and off-line. Even if Steam went bust tomorrow I would still be able to play all my installed Steam games. (Whether I'd be able to re-install them and/or install other Steam games that I've purchased but don't have installed is another matter entirely.) With OnLive you are completely dependent upon its servers functioning, not being overcrowded, etc. That is something I personally will not accept when I've paid for a game that isn't a dedicated online game. Furthermore, with Steam I get to keep any game I've ever purchased for as long as Steam exists and/or for as long as I keep said game(s) installed on a hard drive (barring having Valve ban my Steam account). That's not how OnLive is currently set up; currently you may expect a game you've paid for (full price and then some in many instances!) to become unavailable after three years, and since OnLive will truly have you by the tender bits once you've committed to it, there's no telling whether they'll renege on that and decrease the time (or extend it).
4) Cloud computing has its uses and like so much other tech it also has its drawbacks. Security is one major concern and while you might not take it seriously you can bet there are very serious men and women in drab government, military, and corporate conference rooms taking it very seriously indeed. After all, if you require physical presence to access a hard drive that is on a closed system, etc. then there is really only one place that can be accessed: the place you store it. With cloud computing your data can theoretically be accessed from anywhere in the world that has an active internet connection. That's a security nightmare (beyond what we already face with the current internet structure).
Cloud computing may take off in some areas yet I hope it doesn't take off in all areas. As for the gaming aspect of cloud computing I for one have no intention of helping it on its feet by spending money on it.
ps3TheMagicNumba on 29 Sep '11 said:
Cheers dude, I‘m sorry if I came across as a bit of a cock. I never really mean to offend seriously but sometimes I just find it hard to stop when the Home Guard start flapping and squawking about PS3 fanboys!
...and to the dude above: sub-N64 graphics? Really?
sabre2011 on 29 Sep '11 said:
Hmmm KFD I respect you and what you have to say.Judging by the amount of defending forum posters you have I will tread carefully in my response.
Physical media is dying. You can argue with me till you are blue in the face but it is still the truth. I have already stated I have an attic full of games dating back to cassette based Zx81 games and Atari vcs games. I honestly do understand what you and others are saying about how you like to physically own the media you purchase. However what I am trying to say is like it or not physical media is dying. Yes I am aware there is a mass market in second hand games but what you forget about is the publishers and game studios make nothing out of this market. And the publishers and game studios are the people who are now calling the shots.
Piracy and second hand sales are hurting the industry. You can look it up for yourself that the Games studios are unhappy with the loss in profits. The music & Film industry has suffered the same way and look how easy it is now to get your music and film media over the cloud. Apple is shortly to introduce a cloud based system that will let you watch your paid for tv shows over the cloud. Amazon has a similar system. Its the next step in the ever evolving media game. Game software is now the next product to go down this road. You only have to look at major retailers like Gamestop who are now working on there own cloud based service to realize that its just a matter of time. Gamestop is a major second hand seller of games. Why would they spend millions of $$ on a cloud based service that could hurt there second hand sales? They are creating a cloud based service because they are aware of the direction the industry is heading and they want a slice of the digital pie.
As for the Steam service that so many people have commented on with things like At least you actually have the data on your hard drives. While that is true how are you going to play those games if your connection goes down? Steam needs an active connection just before you start the game. No connection no play. Yes I know you can put the service in offline mode but even that eventually needs to authenticate with the steam servers. I've mentioned so many times before in the past posts that Game studios are going down the always on connection method yet you KFD and others seem to bypass those sections of my post
(Disclaimer to KFD fans ahead)
.... KFD if you did mention something about this subject that I missed, I Humbly apologize ;O).....
(Disclaimer over.. Please call of the defending Hordes ;O)
So what I and others are telling you is the industry is going to a cloud based service. Don't get me wrong KFD as I have already stated I have a HUGE collection of games dating back to the early 80's and yes even I an Onlive fan will publicly say I will miss physical media. (There I said it for all you die hards), However its the future and no matter how much you hate change, its going to happen. So you can cling on to the past for as long as possible or embrace the future. End of the day its your call KFD but remember me 10 years from now when Physical media is all but a dust covered cd case in your attic and to the next generation of kids something they read about in school.
woodins on 29 Sep '11 said:
The future, whether we like it or not, will be a cloud/digital hybrid. I'm okay(ish) with digital distribution - it just means I will buy less games as I wont be able to exchange them if I feel like I have been duped yet again by the hyperbole machine. The hype about the savings passed onto the consumer are just that - hype. Once bricks and mortar sales are dead publishers will have no real competition so prices can be set how they like.
However, I'm gonna hold onto a a chipset and HD for as long as is feasibly possible. I don't care how fast our conventional internet gets, any service that is run by a for-profit business will be as lean as possible when it comes to infrastructural improvements. Not moaning, thats just life. Internet down-times still do and will occur. Never mind the issues the Cloud Service provider may face on their end. Even if my net connection is down or having a bad day (had two outages on Sunday that lasted five mins a time) I still wouldn't mind being able to access my paid for content on some kind of storage device so I can still work/play games regardless. Thats the main outstanding issue I have with Cloud.
arimo on 13 Oct '11 said:
I would be ready to pay $500 at only one condition : if it is made by Sony in Japan and not by foxconn or/and pegatron in China.