Will OnLive work?

[Officer Combine]

I don't really have any idea.

 

[Fishlore]

I think it could eventually work to a limited degree. The two issues I see are release days for big AAA games and then latency in the time it takes to send data to the servers and receive data back. I don't see this as a show stopper in two years time, but do see it as a show stopper today. I don't feel that it will be perfect in two years, however I feel that it could work decently.

I don't think all gamers will be using it at any point but I also don't believe that it won't have enough of a following. So I'd vote somewhere between the top two choices, but neither fit my opinion.

 

[G(ordon)-man]

I truly hope that it will work, but i afraid not.

 

[Sir Phoenixx]

If it was released in 10+ years when dialup is mostly gone and replaced with modern broadband as the "slow" option with a "super broadband" replacing it... Maybe. I have a $32 6mbps DSL connection, so I'd be just able to play it at 720p (if I wasn't doing anything else with the connection), but I'd really prefer not having to play PC games at such a low resolution...

 

[2Fast4U]

I truly hope that it will work, but i afraid not.

This should be a poll option.

 

[giant384]

there are lots of times where the net connection could be out in my house or maybe the onlive servers are down for maintainence. i just dont see this being very successful.

in the end we are basically just going to pay someone to have a remote connection to borrow a desktop.

 

[Stormy]

Its just a compleat wast of time, I dont see any market for it and is a compleat wast of money and time.

What are they trying to replace? Consoles or PC's? Neither of which need replacing.....

I feel sorry for the poor people who have invested time and money into this project.

 

[Stigmata]

This won't work anywhere but in Japan and Sweden for the next five years or so.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

Only a very few people will be able to use it. For example i'm on a 16mb internet connection yet the max download speed i ever got was 302KB/s not enough to use the service.
Plus i prefer to spend more and have a faster Pc that will speed up everything i do then pay less and have ONlive do it for me.

 

[Officer Combine]

Its a good idea. Just like setting up a civilization on the moon. It can be done, but what would be needed to do it is just enormous.

 

[Warbie]

Not today. One day this will be how games are played.

 

[Officer Combine]

Not today. One day this will be how games are played.

Or a new type of game that will be introduced that is completely different from the games of today. Virtual reality maybe? Like paintball except you get to use m16s instead of paintball guns?

 

[Sir Phoenixx]

Only a very few people will be able to use it. For example i'm on a 16mb internet connection yet the max download speed i ever got was 302KB/s not enough to use the service.
Plus i prefer to spend more and have a faster Pc that will speed up everything i do then pay less and have ONlive do it for me.

That sucks, 300KB/s is 2.4Mbps (cheap DSL speeds), your connection is almost 7x slower then your advertised speed. :| How much does your connection cost? (Cable, right?)

With my DSL connection I usually get around 700KB/s if the server I'm downloading from is fast enough, sometimes around the advertised speed of 750KB/s, a couple times I was able to download at 800KB/s. How good is cable usually with actual/advertised download speeds?

 

[Deleted member 56031]

Although I think it has great potential I think it will suffer a bit from lag, will probably cost quite a bit and I just can't see this replacing consoles or PC gaming.

 

[Officer Combine]

Although I think it has great potential I think it will suffer a bit from lag, will probably cost quite a bit and I just can't see this replacing consoles or PC gaming.

I didn't think the computer variant was supposed to cost much of anything.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

That sucks, 300KB/s is 2.4Mbps (cheap DSL speeds), your connection is almost 7x slower then your advertised speed. :| How much does your connection cost? (Cable, right?)

With my DSL connection I usually get around 700KB/s if the server I'm downloading from is fast enough, sometimes around the advertised speed of 750KB/s, a couple times I was able to download at 800KB/s. How good is cable usually with actual/advertised download speeds?

No, mines thought the phone line as i'm in a none cable area. It costs me ?10 a month as it came with my Sky tv package. Although i considering downgrading to the 8mb package as there is no point paying extra for a service i can't get. From what i can tell the phone lines in the UK are shit and can't handle it and the majority of broadband customers here don't get any where near the advertised speed.

 

[Mellish]

I'll never use it. It completely eliminates mods and it's impossible to play offline.

 

[Deleted member 56031]

I didn't think the computer variant was supposed to cost much of anything.

Well I don't know the exacts of it so you might know more than me but I just think the monthly subscription could be a little high.

 

[Asuka]

Wheres the option it will eventually work great (just like steam) and it will have a big enough following, bringing in new gamers and creating options for existing gamers.

 

[Laivasse]

It's probably where stuff is headed for the future, but I don't think it will be workable on any significant scale for another 5-10 years. It probably doesn't have a chance of working in any country that hasn't invested heavily in Fibre Op for their telecomms infrastructure. Maximum quoted speed for your connection is all well and good, but in Britain, at least, ISPs hate you to max out your connection for any sustained length of time. Their business models haven't been built around the idea that most of their customers are going to be streaming HD video for hours at a stretch. That's mostly why they hate P2P and torrenting so much.

Bandwidth is only a minor problem compared to latency, however. I haven't seen much in all the demo guff so far that talks about how it's going to be dealt with. Then you have complications due to server load on launch days, customer frustration due to service cutoffs... Maybe there are places in the world where it could work, but not that many.

That sucks, 300KB/s is 2.4Mbps (cheap DSL speeds), your connection is almost 7x slower then your advertised speed. :|

This is the norm in ripoff-Britain. Almost every broadband deal is sold as having 'Speeds of up to...', with the actual tested speed being only a fraction of that, dependent on distance from the local exchange.

 

[Ren.182]

I don't think it'd work well any time soon. Maybe in 5 years to a decade... maybe.

Firstly, not many people are going to be able to stream the 720p video. For example, most internet companies these days cap users if they download over a certain amount in a day. For me its a few gig per day then I get throttled to 1/4 my speed. Streaming 720p video would really use up that cap quickly.

Latency is seriously going to be an issue I feel. They say they can stream it with a 1ms ping and that they've worked with internet providers to ensure this. But seriously... how the hell can you stream 720p footage constantly with a 1ms delay to the user? I dont see how its possible.

Also, will the servers really be able to cope with the amount of users logging on and streaming games? With more users comes more traffic, it's just going to add on to those latency issues.

Its a great idea, would really get a lot more people into games I feel. And if they can really do what they say it can do it would be amazing. But its going to have a lot of issues to start off with and I don't think it'd stop me from keeping my PC up-to-date. I just prefer owning my games rather than just renting them.

 

[Gorgon]

THEY NEED to make deals with ISP regarding the caping they are making on our bandwidth.

 

[Sheepo]

Or a new type of game that will be introduced that is completely different from the games of today. Virtual reality maybe? Like paintball except you get to use m16s instead of paintball guns?

Do not want.

 

[Cpt Tenacious]

I still think it's an April Fools joke.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

THEY NEED to make deals with ISP regarding the caping they are making on our bandwidth.

Unless Onlive pay the ISP's then they are going to cap it. ISP's in England hate anything bandwidth heavy. When the BBC iplayer was released there was an uproar from ISP's complaining they can't handle it and the BBC should pay them. And that was just a low quality video on demand service. I like that we'll supposedly be able to stream 720p video with less lag than playing Left4Dead.

 

[Letters]

By the time the network and technology exists to do something like this, I expect it'd be pointless anyway.

Giant crock of shit.

 

[the cow says moo]

Oh, how I do so hope Onlive will work.

 

[Kyorisu]

Not today. One day this will be how games are played.

The speed of light begs to differ.

Unless Onlive pay the ISP's then they are going to cap it. ISP's in England hate anything bandwidth heavy. When the BBC iplayer was released there was an uproar from ISP's complaining they can't handle it and the BBC should pay them. And that was just a low quality video on demand service. I like that we'll supposedly be able to stream 720p video with less lag than playing Left4Dead.

In Australia we have a company called PIPE Networks which pretty much solves all domestic bandwidth problems. http://www.pipenetworks.com/. We have services like IPTV and ABC Iview and those run just fine http://www.abc.net.au/iview/. One of the problems OnLive has is dealing with having no buffer what so ever. If there is even the slightest blip in connectivity to the OnLive servers your game is going to stop dead. Latency isn't an issue when you have no connectivity at all

 

[Alig]

No, mines thought the phone line as i'm in a none cable area. It costs me ?10 a month as it came with my Sky tv package. Although i considering downgrading to the 8mb package as there is no point paying extra for a service i can't get. From what i can tell the phone lines in the UK are shit and can't handle it and the majority of broadband customers here don't get any where near the advertised speed.

You must live far from the exchange because that sucks big time, i'd downgrade

I can download an average of 700KB/sec from a decent website, been very close to 1mb/sec over Steam and this is on 'upto' 8mb BT DSL. The exchange is at the end of my road though The line shows at 6.5mb line when i do a speed test

 

[swan_song1973]

i really hope it works. i know id make use of it.

 

[barbarbarbarbar]

OnLive ?

God I'm so uninformed...


EDIT:

Oh ... I sure won't use it . What is the difference between this and steam , except the console ?

 

[the cow says moo]

OnLive ?

God I'm so uninformed...


EDIT:

Oh ... I sure won't use it . What is the difference between this and steam , except the console ?

First of all, you won't need the console if you're playing on the computer.
The difference between Onlive and Steam is that you're actually playing on a super-server hundreds of miles away. All your computer will do is show the game on the screen. This means there's no downloading and apparently no lag.

 

[Sir Phoenixx]

What is the difference between this and steam

Physical copies from Online/Retail Stores
--You have a physical copy of the game.
--Except for a few recent games, there is no need to have an internet connection.

Steam or other Digital Distribution service
--You only have a digital copy of the game. (which you might be able to backup on disc depending on the service)
--To install or reinstall anything, you need to have an internet connection.
--And to download (install) at a reasonable rate you need at least a cheap/decent broadband connection.

OnLive
--You don't even have a digital copy of the game
--An internet connection is required to play any and all games. If your connection, or their servers go down, you can't play your games. You'd have to play whatever else is on your PC, or nothing.
--To play at higher then Youtube-like resolution, you'd need at least a rather good broadband connection (5-6mbps or higher), and even then, you're only playing at 1280x720. (which is pretty much the widescreen version of the "ancient" 1024x768)
--Games are ran on their servers, what you're seeing is just a video stream of the games on their servers reacting to your input. If your game crashes/freezes/etc., you'd have to rely entirely on them to reset your server/game/whatever. And seeing how a lot of games really like to freeze and crash, they'd be rather busy fixing them all the time.
--Regardless of the lies they're trying to pass off, there will be lag. Your commands won't magically get their instantly, unless they have their servers in every city in the world, a lot of people will see lag. It would take 20ms, for example, for your command to shoot to travel to their server, and then another 20ms for the video to travel back. That would be in addition to the multiplayer lag if you're playing an online game.
--No personal or unnofficial mods. It could be possible that they'd have the really popular and officially approved mods available to play.

Again, 1280x720! That's ok for a console game or if you can only play your PC games on your 720p HDTV or you have a crappy PC/monitor (or if you time traveled 6-8 years into the past). That is unacceptable for modern PC games in general. I play at 1680x1050, my monitors native resolution, there's no way I'd pay to play PC games at half the resolution...

 

[Agent.M]

You need to add a new answer saying "No it wont work but I hope it does!"

 

[Sheepo]

That doesn't make any sense.

 

[Kyorisu]

They will also fail because of peak demand meaning they'll need 10 times the capacity of their average loading. They'll be unlikely to be able to leverage idle time to sell compute cluster capability. Plus, what about more than "high-def"? Gaming in tiny 1080 resolution is soooo 2005.