OnLive's MicroConsole Aims to Make Console Gaming Easier

Tom Goldman

Crying on the inside.
Aug 17, 2009
14,499
0
0
OnLive's MicroConsole Aims to Make Console Gaming Easier



The OnLive MicroConsole doesn't take up a lot of shelf space, but still allows you to play many games from larger first-party consoles.

Cloud gaming service OnLive has been available on the PC and Mac for months, and now it can be played on your television too. OnLive has revealed the details of its new MicroConsole, a box that allows users to sit on the couch and play OnLive games through an included controller just like they would with an Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3.

If you haven't heard of OnLive yet, it basically streams games through the internet, even on low-end computers that wouldn't be able to handle them otherwise. My impression of it is for pre-order here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/103091-OnLive-Impression-Should-You-Care] and currently costs $99.99 with a limited-time holiday promotion throwing in a $49.99 game for free. The MicroConsole will ship on December 2, 2010.

The bundle includes the OnLive controller, an HDMI cable, and Ethernet cable. The console itself is around the size of a Nintendo DSi, so it requires significantly less room than current generation consoles. It has two USB ports in the front, which for now are used to plug in the OnLive controller when using the $19.99 rechargeable battery pack and recharge cable. The MicroConsole's back houses an HDMI port, Ethernet port, and optical audio out. OnLive is catering to the HD audience, so if your television doesn't have an HDMI port a component video adapter kit is available for $29.99.

The wireless OnLive controller feels just like an Xbox 360 controller, with nearly identical button placement, but the dual analog stick and D-pad positions of a PlayStation 3 controller. Using it to play OnLive games such as Borderlands [http://www.amazon.com/Borderlands-Game-Year-Xbox-360/dp/B0041OWQUI/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1290088838&sr=8-2] feels just like it does on other systems, though it does also have non-intrusive buttons so that gameplay clips can be recorded.

OnLive has 35 titles available, but it plans to go above 50 by the end of 2010 and says 100 more are in the pipeline. The offerings currently include games you would find on consoles and PCs like Darksiders [http://www.amazon.com/Batman-Arkham-Asylum-Platinum-Xbox-360/dp/B001E8VB3C/ref=sr_1_2?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1290089551&sr=1-2], so if you browse OnLive's selection and see plenty of games you want, the MicroConsole might be a good way to save a few hundred dollars and some shelf space. My advice is to check out OnLive on the PC, and see if you'd want it on your TV. Just make sure you understand that you only own these games while using OnLive as long as it is running.

OnLive also announced a future flat-rate, monthly price it intends to implement that will give users access to extra content that includes "back-catalog, indie, and classic games." These will be new games not currently available on the service, but the flat-rate won't include new releases which will still retain their a la carte pricing.

The OnLive MicroConsole works perfectly, but it's a tough machine for me to judge as someone that will always want Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo's consoles. On one hand, spending $99.99 could potentially net you a console that you use for various third-party games until the end of time, as you'll pretty much never need an upgrade thanks to OnLive's method of operation. On the other hand, you miss out on first-party titles and exclusive content like that found on the PlayStation Network and Xbox Live Arcade, and the first-party consoles currently provide access to the same games for a similar price at release.

OnLive itself has said that the service isn't for hardcore gamers that need the latest console and PC upgrades. Will it be able to reach the people that would feel more comfortable just buying one small box that mimics the plug-and-play TV game systems, albeit with individual purchases? OnLive and its MicroConsole have a lot of neat features, such as being able to continue a game played through the TV on a PC, but it has its disadvantages too, such as relying on the internet to be able to play. As OnLive increases its gaming offerings, and perhaps implements advantageous pricing, it'll become a more attractive deal, but it's still something with both pros and cons that need to be weighed. As a gaming service available on both the computer and in the living room, OnLive is at least breaking new ground and trying to see if there's a market for it.

Permalink
 

DTWolfwood

Better than Vash!
Oct 20, 2009
3,716
0
0
Now if only i can get a 20mb/s down connection at my house! Not sure i'd want to use this service with anything less. Shoot i sometime have trouble streaming HD vids on my crappy 10mb connection :(
 

Baby Tea

Just Ask Frankie
Sep 18, 2008
4,687
0
0
I tried the On-live trial, and have been impressed with how it works.
I am not impressed with their pricing model, however.

They need a net-flix style of pricing.
If they said 'Hey, pay $15 a month and get unlimited access to 2 or 3 games for a month.' I'd probably sign right up! Seriously. But since I've got to pay full price for a game that I won't actually own, and can't use offline? Forget it.

And they need to include new releases in that.
Even if they said 'You can choose 1 new release, and 2 back-catalog for a month'.
Otherwise, it just doesn't seem worth the money, or risk.

I would love, however, to see Microsoft and Sony implement this tech on XBL and PSN for demos.
XBL Gold members (OR PSN Pplus members) get to cloud-test demos instead of downloading them?
Awesome.
 

thenumberthirteen

Unlucky for some
Dec 19, 2007
4,794
0
0
I've just been trying out OnLive today, and it seems pretty good. The servers are in the US, but I was able to play from here in the UK without too much trouble. What I really like about OnLive is that you can rent games easily as well as buy. This is good since you can get a fun weekend rental for a few bucks without having to go to a video store, or use a mail-order system, and generally there is no easy way to rent PC games.

I've got a good gaming PC, and a big HDD (though I've had to do some spring cleaning today) so OnLive isn't the perfect option for me, but if it means you can play games on a Netbook then that's still pretty damn cool.
 

MasterSplinter

New member
Jul 8, 2009
440
0
0
When cable companies get a wind of this, the technology will be reverse-engineered and bundled with cable and eventually television sets. That is the future, consoles will be obsolete.

DTWolfwood said:
Now if only i can get a 20mb/s down connection at my house! Not sure i'd want to use this service with anything less. Shoot i sometime have trouble streaming HD vids on my crappy 10mb connection :(
From what i've read a 1,5mb connection is the minimum for SD and a 5mb is the optimal for HD.
I think the mayor issue could possibly be the stability of the connection and not the velocity, not in first world country's.
 

Terramax

New member
Jan 11, 2008
3,747
0
0
I think this is a really good idea.

But I would much prefer it to play retro games with, like playing Street Fighter Alpha 3 or Giga Wing, where I'm only playing for 30-60 minute periods. I'm sure my internet connection wouldn't keep a game going stable for 6 hour sittings, which is many of their games aim for.
 

rembrandtqeinstein

New member
Sep 4, 2009
2,173
0
0
I wonder what the specs are of that box. If it can be hacked to run linux it is a great form factor for an htpc and the price is right. Or $99 for an emulator box would also not be bad.
 

DTWolfwood

Better than Vash!
Oct 20, 2009
3,716
0
0
MasterSplinter said:
When cable companies get a wind of this, the technology will be reverse-engineered and bundled with cable and eventually television sets. That is the future, consoles will be obsolete.

DTWolfwood said:
Now if only i can get a 20mb/s down connection at my house! Not sure i'd want to use this service with anything less. Shoot i sometime have trouble streaming HD vids on my crappy 10mb connection :(
From what i've read a 1,5mb connection is the minimum for SD and a 5mb is the optimal for HD.
I think the mayor issue could possibly be the stability of the connection and not the velocity, not in first world country's.
Yes 10mb/s is equal to about 1.25Mb/s so im on the low end. Unless of course they actually meant megabit rather than megabyte, then of course i'm well within the recommended. lol ppl to this day still get confused. The fact the cable companies sell them Megabits/second not Megabytes (while everyone else thinks of files in megabytes)
 

MasterSplinter

New member
Jul 8, 2009
440
0
0
DTWolfwood said:
MasterSplinter said:
When cable companies get a wind of this, the technology will be reverse-engineered and bundled with cable and eventually television sets. That is the future, consoles will be obsolete.

DTWolfwood said:
Now if only i can get a 20mb/s down connection at my house! Not sure i'd want to use this service with anything less. Shoot i sometime have trouble streaming HD vids on my crappy 10mb connection :(
From what i've read a 1,5mb connection is the minimum for SD and a 5mb is the optimal for HD.
I think the mayor issue could possibly be the stability of the connection and not the velocity, not in first world country's.
Yes 10mb/s is equal to about 1.25Mb/s so im on the low end. Unless of course they actually meant megabit rather than megabyte, then of course i'm well within the recommended. lol ppl to this day still get confused. The fact the cable companies sell them Megabits/second not Megabytes (while everyone else thinks of files in megabytes)
I meant Megabyte, i thought you did too. To me mb = Mb. But maybe i got it all wrong.
 

DTWolfwood

Better than Vash!
Oct 20, 2009
3,716
0
0
MasterSplinter said:
DTWolfwood said:
MasterSplinter said:
When cable companies get a wind of this, the technology will be reverse-engineered and bundled with cable and eventually television sets. That is the future, consoles will be obsolete.

DTWolfwood said:
Now if only i can get a 20mb/s down connection at my house! Not sure i'd want to use this service with anything less. Shoot i sometime have trouble streaming HD vids on my crappy 10mb connection :(
From what i've read a 1,5mb connection is the minimum for SD and a 5mb is the optimal for HD.
I think the mayor issue could possibly be the stability of the connection and not the velocity, not in first world country's.
Yes 10mb/s is equal to about 1.25Mb/s so im on the low end. Unless of course they actually meant megabit rather than megabyte, then of course i'm well within the recommended. lol ppl to this day still get confused. The fact the cable companies sell them Megabits/second not Megabytes (while everyone else thinks of files in megabytes)

I meant Megabyte, i thought you did too. To me mb = Mb. But maybe i got it all wrong.
hah you fell for the ISP trap! XD almost no1 has the 5MB/s down they speak of. But you can get by the the more standard 2.5MB or 20mb/s connection. Me im stuck with a 10+ year old cable connection of 10mb/s :( There are no providers in the area that offer a faster speed ;_;

just remember 8mb = 1mB or 1MB or 1Mb, if its 2 lowercase letter always assume BIT not BYTE
 

Asehujiko

New member
Feb 25, 2008
2,119
0
0
Pirate Kitty said:
The internet just isn't at a place where this is a good idea yet.

Most people forget that a very, very small portion of the world even has computers, let alone high-speed internet.
And that the open beta on the PC gave me the (paraphrased) message "Fuck off, filthy European!" which might harm their international appeal slightly.