ThunderPeel2001

Something witty about OnLive

Recommended Posts

Has anyone seen this yet? They've apparently got it working pretty well. I watched some guy in work playing a bunch of the demos... I was really shocked at how well it worked and looked.

Apparently their marketing department aren't very good, because I'd been looking out for it and it just went under my radar (it apparently launched 6 months ago or something).

Also, their website UX is uttery, uttery terrible.

But it sure made my draw drop when it I saw it running to quickly and easily. In theory you're playing on a top-end gaming rig, and when I saw it running I could totally believe it could be the future.

http://www.onlive.com/service?autoplay=yes

If the people in charge started acting less like Gizmodo, they could be on to something.

Edited by ThunderPeel2001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest negative complaint i keep hearing about OnLive is that its multiplayer ecosystem is separate from the normal multiplayer ecosystems. So if you get UT3 on OnLive thinking that you're going to play it with all your friends who have it on Steam, you're out of luck.

I also remember hearing people bitch about their initial business model. You paying a subscription to have access to the service, and then buying games on top of that, that only work on that service as long as you're paying a subscription. I guess that model has changed though?

Beyond that, people seem to just have a lot of typical concerns about unstable connections and input latency and the like.

It definitely doesn't seem like something that will be ideal for everybody in every situation, geographical location seems to play a big part, how close you are to one of their centers. It's cool technology though, and it has already been around for a while now.

Edited by Sno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been around for a while, but mostly in the US. Are they actually properly supporting European customers now? When I last tried it all the servers were still in North America so 90% of the time it said I didn't have a good enough connection.

That said, having tried it it's also not the same as playing it on a top end rig, not by a long shot. It is, however, like playing any PC game in the world on a computer that can run it decently, without actually requiring said capable computer, and that in itself is a huge step up for many people. The ability to play the new Deus Ex on an 8 year old laptop without even thinking about system specs or configuration is not something to sneeze at.

Given how expensive PC hardware still is (although that is sort of changing to an extent), something like this could definitely be the way of the future. PC gaming would suddenly have a way to compete with the ease and low cost of consoles on their own turf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the UK's internet infrastructure is so ready for this. :fart:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's been around for a while, but mostly in the US. Are they actually properly supporting European customers now? When I last tried it all the servers were still in North America so 90% of the time it said I didn't have a good enough connection.

That really makes no sense since the U.S. is so behind on internet as far as availability, reliability, geography, and speed, so why not start offering the service to Europeans foremost?

AT&T has really fucked this country in terms of internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That really makes no sense since the U.S. is so behind on internet as far as availability, reliability, geography, and speed, so why not start offering the service to Europeans foremost?

AT&T has really fucked this country in terms of internet.

Euro internet is really inconsistent. countries in the north-west have really great connections, UK is really crap dependant on where you live: I live 30 miles from London, but because I live in a village I can only get 3mb/s. In addition to this Eastern European connections are pretty weak, hell a 75 year old managed to cut the connection to two countries: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12985082.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually have quite a bit of first-hand experience with both the service and the hardware they offer. I actually think their marketing department has been pretty solid so far, running sales every week and holiday season much like Steam albeit with a more slimmed catalog. Just search OnLive on Slickdeals and you'll see what I mean.

As far as performance goes, I agree with the assessment that it's running at a level similar to a modest PC. I actually first played with the service on my shitty second-gen netbook (single-core Atom, 2gb RAM, integrated Intel graphics, 1280x800 10" screen) and it ran circles around any other modern game I attempted to run. The controller support for games is pretty impressive too, accepting my wireless 360 controller + wireless adapter with ease.

I think the most promising aspect is the near universality of trial periods for their catalog. What this essentially means is you could be playing a 30-minute demo of any game right from the beginning (basically you're just playing the full game on a timer), which lets you carry on for your regular game save if you choose to buy it at the end. Also, since you don't have to download anything, you could be playing what would be a 4GB demo on PC in a minute or two via OnLive. Other promising features - Mac compatibility with Windows games due to remote server operation, 3 or 5 day instant rental periods, GameTap-esque subscription "PlayPass" with unlimited playtime for older games at $10 a month.

While it's very contingent on internet connection (3 mbps or more, otherwise you're screwed), I'm really liking OnLive. It's just a shame their selection is so limited and their prices on games are so relatively high unless you wait for sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you could be playing a 30-minute demo of any game right from the beginning (basically you're just playing the full game on a timer), which lets you carry on for your regular game save if you choose to buy it at the end

Quite apart from OnLive, more games should do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Euro internet is really inconsistent. countries in the north-west have really great connections, UK is really crap dependant on where you live: I live 30 miles from London, but because I live in a village I can only get 3mb/s. In addition to this Eastern European connections are pretty weak, hell a 75 year old managed to cut the connection to two countries: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12985082.

Hah, I can barely afford 1.5 mbps a month. I wish I could have 3 mbps as a bottom line. I bet your price is much more affordable as well. I should also mention that I live in a big city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quite apart from OnLive, more games should do this.

I think Playstation Plus exclusive games are also doing this (Assassin's Creed Brotherhood is a specific example I remember).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hah, I can barely afford 1.5 mbps a month. I wish I could have 3 mbps as a bottom line. I bet your price is much more affordable as well. I should also mention that I live in a big city.

I used to live in a flat right in the centre of Nottingham and I could only just attain 5Mb/s, whereas in my new one still in the centre I get about 12Mb/s. Before both of those places I got 22Mb/s in a small town.

There seems to be no real pattern to internet connectivity in the UK beyond pot luck because the wiring is so random and so universally SHIT that until you move in it's Russian roulette whether or not you get a decent line. That immediately makes OnLive a waste of time for much of the country unless you enjoy playing games through low-quality video feeds on mid-spec machines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, they may be hoping that the internet will get better in the UK. It has been doing, slowly, and in a very patchwork fashion. It also doesn't help that there are still legal fights going on over the exact wording of ISP agreements and advertising with their customers - for example I believe it is still totally OK for Virgin to advertise "up to 20Mb broadband" while actually delivering an average of 3-5Mb/s and that only to those areas that they can serve well. Most "normal" consumers probably don't know what they're really getting for their money, only what they might be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I used to live in a flat right in the centre of Nottingham and I could only just attain 5Mb/s, whereas in my new one still in the centre I get about 12Mb/s. Before both of those places I got 22Mb/s in a small town.

Those are all still better speeds than what many can obtain in the U.S. in a big city without paying through the nose. Also a month ago AT&T has rolled out a 150 GB cap on DSL users in many areas, even though it's not necessary. Unfortunately in many areas AT&T is the only choice or one of two.

I'm most going by this report I heard about a month or two ago:

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Akamai-US-16th-In-Broadband-Speed-109597

OnLive should be targeting all of the countries in the top 10. But you're right, the United Kingdom is not there. So I really have no idea if it's a similar problem in rural areas there or what, but if it's below the United States on the given list, that's not good as it is a smaller country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh the UK is awful, my examples are probably the nicer ones out there because I'm in the middle of a relatively major city and just happened to live right next to the phone exchange when I did live in a town. For the most part UK connectivity is shit, using the same copper cables laid down decades ago that've degraded, use inefficient routes, and basically are probably in exactly the same state as it sounds like the US's are in.

With that said improvements are being rapidly due to the small size of the country, but it's still only major areas that can lay claim to decent copper speed or fibre-optic — anywhere remotely off the beaten path is going to struggle.

Even 10Mb/s isn't enough to get a decent HD broadcast without considerable buffering so I'm not sure what level of quality they're expecting people to tolerate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, I was getting pretty good 720p streaming at 3-5 mbps. I know it didn't hold up so well for a friend of mine who's a bit of a AV stickler, but for my money I didn't see too much difference between OnLive's stuff at that speed and my regular console stuff. The biggest problem performance-wise was latency, as just every now and then I'd get a tiny bit of lag on the controls that might make a turn in a racing game less tight or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it depends on your set-up and expectations I guess. If I were given a 720p feed at the level of quality you're likely to get from most UK connections (ie: comparable to YouTube) I would not be happy with that on my 1080p screen — which most PC screens are at least nowadays. The quality wouldn't be so much an issue on a TV as you're not right up against the screen, but you'd be mad to do OnLive that way when you'd get infinitely better value for money, better responsiveness, and probably better visuals by simply using a console.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest I think the whole Market value of OnLive flawed. It's not actually that expensive to kit out a decent PC with hardware being so affordable nowadays, unless you opt for top-end hardware — which OnLive isn't going to be using anyway as it'd be financially impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well it depends on your set-up and expectations I guess. If I were given a 720p feed at the level of quality you're likely to get from most UK connections (ie: comparable to YouTube) I would not be happy with that on my 1080p screen — which most PC screens are at least nowadays. The quality wouldn't be so much an issue on a TV as you're not right up against the screen, but you'd be mad to do OnLive that way when you'd get infinitely better value for money, better responsiveness, and probably better visuals by simply using a console.

I'd go to the point that it is more dependant on bitrate, a 720p 44 minute long TV show is roughly 1.9Gb, I know I cannot stream that. However as a Starcraft fan I know that I can stream on Justin.tv at 720p happily. Bit rate is more important here than everything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, compression plays a big part here, as Patters said. And to follow up on my personal experience, I'm actually regularly playing on a 32" television from 6-8 ft away using the OnLive Microconsole. 720p and 1080p are nearly indistinguishable at that distance, so I'm not particularly eager to bemoan that negligible resolution change. I can imagine that OnLive might be more disappointing on a high-resolution monitor from one or two feet away, but that's simply not my use case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be honest I think the whole Market value of OnLive flawed. It's not actually that expensive to kit out a decent PC with hardware being so affordable nowadays, unless you opt for top-end hardware — which OnLive isn't going to be using anyway as it'd be financially impossible.

PC gaming is still ridiculously expensive, in lots of different ways. I know for myself that I don't plan on upgrading my computer just so I can play certain games any time soon (although I would have done in the past). A console is a lot more cost effective, especially since the advent of things like XBLA.

The cool thing about OnLive is that it's instant. No downloading and installing a demo only to discover you hate the game. You just choose it and then you're playing. Don't like it? Try another one in a few seconds. Installing games and upgrading hardware just seems archaic and unnecessary in the face of something like this.

Even if OnLive doesn't take off, I think this will ultimately be the future in some form or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PC gaming is still ridiculously expensive, in lots of different ways. I know for myself that I don't plan on upgrading my computer just so I can play certain games any time soon (although I would have done in the past). A console is a lot more cost effective, especially since the advent of things like XBLA.

It's not that expensive, though. It's definitely not as cheap as consoles and I'm not even proposing the argument that it is, but the PC hardware market has changed during the past five or so years due to the extreme affordability of powerful components — I bought my quad-core 3Ghz in 2007 for about £100 and it's still kicking ass, and my 8GB of RAM set me back like £100 and is similarly going strong.

The only area of real expense is the graphics card, but again my four-year-old card is quite capable of running Battlefield: Bad Company 2 on high graphics and I can comfortably max out Crysis (which is more graphically sophisticated than any existing console game including Crysis 2). Overall you're looking at less than a few hundred quid to keep you going for a generation of games.

If you start wanting to run PC games on max at 1080p+ and with perfect frame rates then you will pay considerably more, but you're not getting that with OnLive anyway. Plus this generation of consoles has kind of accustomed people to shoddy frame rates. :fart:

My feeling is PC gaming is only going to become more affordable with time as hardware becomes increasingly powerful at increasingly low prices, and it'll get to the point where everyone has a powerful-ass PC or laptop that they don't even necessary use for gaming — that's simply how powerful PC hardware is. And then if they want to run games on them they just can, leaving services like OnLive unnecessary, inferior, and probably more expensive overall (ie: over several years) too.

But really I'm not trying to put down OnLive as such, just sharing where I think the PC gaming scene will go. :tup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye, fair enough. For my money everything is going "cloud" (a horribly overused phrase, I know). I think the future will be streaming - or at least delivered on-demand. Music, movies, games, all from subscriptions. The power of your hardware will become less relevant (as you say, but -) because it won't be used as much.

I'll pay my monthly subscription, and I'll get access to a vast instant library. I reckon that new games will be the last to convert to this model.

Time will tell if either of us is right!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now