Welcome to Thunderdome

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:23 pm**

Article.

Uh, no. Sorry, but I don't see this succeeding anytime soon.

First of all, you've already got ISPs, including some of the biggest ones in the country, pissy about people using too much bandwidth. Now you want them to stream video games?

Secondly, most folks are still working with 1-3 MB pipes. You're telling me that those speeds are going to be good enough to stream games like Crysis: Warhead without any waiting for downloads, etc.? Horseshit.

Third, speaking of load times and downloads, I'd like to see more on this test that the writer saw. Am I to honestly believe that they were able to play Crysis: Warhead with zero download time, zero loading times, etc. all on a TV and as well as a high end PC would play it? That's a hell of a claim. That's like saying you drove a Gremlin recently and it performed as well as an F-22. I'd be willing to bet that no modems were involved. it wouldn't be difficult to have the game preloaded or have the device connecting to servers with the game via a LAN and not over any DSL or cable connection.

Fourth, PCs, X-Boxs, and PS3s (and Nintendo?) already allow games to be purchased and downloaded online, then played. (Note the downloading part.) How is this revolutionary?

Fifth, who wants to continually rely upon an online vendor for their video games that they paid for? If this thing isn't downloading, then what happens when you try to play, but your connection is down? How do you save games? How do you download additional content?

Sixth, if I'm a game developer, do I want my game being played through this "new technology"? The unit HAS to cost something, and I assume the cost will be low, which means the maker will also charge monthly fees. So how much is left for the developer to sell his game? Even the stupidest consumers will be able to see the difference between $50 for a game on the consoles, $40 on the PC, and over $100 for this "new technology" (that's monthly fees, internet connection, and the game...and that's being conservative with the internet connection costs).

I imagine at some point in the future, such a technology will be more realistic, but right now, no way.

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:27 pm**

I'm guessing it was a local-LAN test. I just can't imagine the lag on it in reality being overcome.

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:46 pm**

BOHICA

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:57 pm**

OnLive hits the big time.

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:01 pm**

I just found another article on the technology and it's not new. (Nor does the article address any of my questions.)

In fact, to put it simply, it seems like it's nothing more than a KVM switch.

Essentially, you'll just be streaming video of the game you're playing and uploading your controller inputs.

They say you need a 1.5 MB pipe for standard definition games and a 5 MB pipe for HD.

They claim they'll only need 5 servers throughout the U.S. to pull this off, although you have to be within 1000 miles of one for this to work properly.

I still don't see how lag can't be an issue. If I move the mouse to react to something on screen, that has to go to their servers and then stream back down to me.

Also, the article mentions pricing. There will be a cost for the unit itself (and controllers), plus monthly fees for their service. Games will be an additional cost and those prices will be up to developers.

It will be interesting to watch and see how this thing does in the market.

On a related note, there are these things called PCs that you can put in your home and hook up to the internet. Through them you can hook up to free services like Steam where you can buy and download games (prices are set by the developers). If your internet connection is down, you can still play them. Also, you can download all the free content and mods you want. Plus, you can access it from anywhere in the world.

Posted: **Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:34 pm**

Onlive is essentially a failure.

Duh.

Edited By Leisher on 1345829686

Posted: **Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:39 pm**

They might be able to stream some Infocom text games, but that's about it.

Posted: **Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:02 pm**

I tried it awhile back and it streamed beautifully with zero latency. It was very impressive.

But I didn't care to pay them full price to access games on their service, and their rental prices were too high for too little time. The business side needs work, the tech was just fine.

If they can hold on until OUYA comes out, maybe that'll be the boost they need.

Edited By TPRJones on 1345831406

Posted: **Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:17 pm**

I don't buy it.

Here to there is much faster than there to here to there to here...and that's not even getting into multiplayer games.

Beyond that, I think it fails because it's trying to replace too much with too little.

My PS3 isn't a gaming console. It's primarily my Blu-Ray player and Netflix device.

My X-Box also does Netflix, and I multi sports games with friends on it (or used to).

My PC...do I even need to give reasons why Onlive can't replace it? (Here's one obvious one...STEAM)

Onlive is a decent idea, but at the end of the day, where's your audience?

Nerds want their toys, so it's not them.

Anyone who has multiple uses for their device doesn't want Onlive.

Video game renters have Gamefly.

There's just no market.

Posted: **Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:31 pm**

Onlive lets you play full console games on your Android device. That's new.

You do need to be on wifi or 4G for it, 3G just isn't enough. Still, if you haven't tried it it's very impressive.

Posted: **Fri Aug 24, 2012 3:33 pm**

I'm sure it is, but why would you want to do that?

I don't want to play GTAV on a tablet.

Posted: **Fri Aug 24, 2012 3:38 pm**

Leisher wrote:My PS3 isn't a gaming console. It's primarily my Blu-Ray player and Netflix device.

Same here, but I also have not yet found a video file that I can't download to my dedicated server and play in the living room through the PS3.

As far as I am concerned, the PS3 is the definitive living room media center.

Posted: **Fri Aug 24, 2012 3:41 pm**

Leisher wrote:I'm sure it is, but why would you want to do that?

I don't want to play GTAV on a tablet.

There's a couple of possibilities I can come up with.

1) Bringing your XBOX into a big work meeting might be frowned on, but you can sometimes get away with playing games on your tablet.

2) Don't have or can't afford a console or gaming PC, but do have some other device powerful enough to run the OnLive client.

Posted: **Fri Aug 24, 2012 3:58 pm**

1) Bringing your XBOX into a big work meeting might be frowned on, but you can sometimes get away with playing games on your tablet.

Nah. You want casual games for that. Games designed for the touch screen not a controller with 8 buttons (not counting the two additional joysticks, Start, and Select).

You also want to play saved games or save your games, and Onlive doesn't allow you to access those on your consoles/PC.

2) Don't have or can't afford a console or gaming PC, but do have some other device powerful enough to run the OnLive client.

I can't think of that device. Even if there is such a device that makes one skip a $149/199 X-Box or $100 Wii, how big is that market?

Point being, Onlive might be able to do things, but it won't do them better than consoles and PCs, it won't draw in the nerds who love their equipment, it won't draw in casual gamers who would rather play Angry Birds or Zombies vs Plants, and its service won't allow you to jump from device to device with saved games.

I just don't think it has a market.

Posted: **Fri Aug 24, 2012 4:24 pm**

Leisher wrote:I can't think of that device. Even if there is such a device that makes one skip a $149/199 X-Box or $100 Wii, how big is that market?

It's pretty much limited to kids who have been given a laptop/netbook/tablet that is not good enough to run good games and who's parents won't buy a console for, but who ... do have a credit card to pay for OnLive?

Okay, I give up.

Welcome to Thunderdome

New tech makes consoles obsolete?