Simple enough question. I'm intrigued, but wary. I love the idea and I'd love to give it a shot. You?
Anyone give a shit about OnLive?
- Thread starter Blindswordmaster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Would you mind explaining it real quick? I'd do the research myself, but it would be easier to discuss if I didn't have to, and could input right away, you understand.
I'm afraid I've only heard of it in a Penny Arcade comic.
I'm afraid I've only heard of it in a Penny Arcade comic.
Thanks for the info!
This sounds great actually! I'm really excited about the prospects of cloud-computing, and it's great to see some practical applications of it, especially in the video game world.
I think I shall have to get some second opinions before jumping in though. Cloud computing is still a fairly new tech, still has some kinks to work out.
Still, very optimistic!
This sounds great actually! I'm really excited about the prospects of cloud-computing, and it's great to see some practical applications of it, especially in the video game world.
I think I shall have to get some second opinions before jumping in though. Cloud computing is still a fairly new tech, still has some kinks to work out.
Still, very optimistic!
I gave it a try last week.
It's... alright. I mean, it's NOTHING compared to actually playing a game on your own system. It lags, the graphics are constantly blurry and stuttering, the sound occasionally glitches, but hey, what else do you expect? It's a new technology, cloud-based gaming. Just give it time, they'll be able to work it out.
Also, the idea that you don't own the games you've bought disturbs me. To know that if a game is deleted from the OnLive service (They say that won't happen within 3 years of the game being released), you lose it, that just scares me.
It's... alright. I mean, it's NOTHING compared to actually playing a game on your own system. It lags, the graphics are constantly blurry and stuttering, the sound occasionally glitches, but hey, what else do you expect? It's a new technology, cloud-based gaming. Just give it time, they'll be able to work it out.
Also, the idea that you don't own the games you've bought disturbs me. To know that if a game is deleted from the OnLive service (They say that won't happen within 3 years of the game being released), you lose it, that just scares me.
> Simple enough question. I'm intrigued, but wary. I love the idea and I'd love to give it a shot. You?
There's a real simple way to do this: Go to their website and try it out for yourself. They barely ask for any information when you login--no credit card or anything needed.
https://www.onlive.com/go/signup
There's a real simple way to do this: Go to their website and try it out for yourself. They barely ask for any information when you login--no credit card or anything needed.
https://www.onlive.com/go/signup
This also disturbs me, I'm fond of Cloud computing for business purposes, where I pay a company to store my sensitive data to keep it on their servers and well maintained by them, if anything goes wrong its down to them to sort it out in double quick time.onewheeled999 said:
But for an expensive hobby such as gaming?, taking away Burnout with all my best scores suddenly would irk me, put it into real world terms instead of data and 1's and 0'z. If one of your hobbies was to collect Gundam memorabilia, and after amassing several large toy robots over the course of 3 years the shop you bought them from could suddenly take them from you?, you'd be pissed.
This is where I show that I'm a crotchety old man who is behind the times and clinging to the old ways like a drowning sailor. I want physical copies. I want to know that I can hold something that I've paid for in my hand as a real thing. I love my cartridges and my discs and even my VHS movies.
I don't want to pay for a service that can be cut off, broken, taken away, or made immaterial through no action that I've taken. I still go back and play games that I bought in the early 90s, I have no intention of paying for a game that I can only access for a relatively brief period of time through a very specific set of circumstances.
I don't want to pay for a service that can be cut off, broken, taken away, or made immaterial through no action that I've taken. I still go back and play games that I bought in the early 90s, I have no intention of paying for a game that I can only access for a relatively brief period of time through a very specific set of circumstances.
Its basically a form of Remote desktop.
Esthetically it seems to offer up something of a good idea, however in practical application it doesnt seem like it would be stable enough and would suffer some degree of input latency, thus making gaming on it unrealistic.
I have set up network configurations to do this exact same thing in effect, and try as it might it just wasnt viable. Not to say that it couldnt be done with proper optimization, but I just dont see it being real viable.
Aslo, you got to consider what the impact of something like this would be to the industry if it were to take off. Obviously if it became popular, the console makers would fight against it, but it would also have other fights such as the PC industry, which one of the major things driving PC sales is the obsolence factor and gaming typically pushes the need for bigger and better hardware. Without it, computer lifespans would dramatically increase. I mean I can still use my moms 500mhz 512 ram p2 PC to do about 70% of what I would need to use a computer for. So I think that in all likelyhood these industry heads would do anything in their power to negate anything like that from happening.
Esthetically it seems to offer up something of a good idea, however in practical application it doesnt seem like it would be stable enough and would suffer some degree of input latency, thus making gaming on it unrealistic.
I have set up network configurations to do this exact same thing in effect, and try as it might it just wasnt viable. Not to say that it couldnt be done with proper optimization, but I just dont see it being real viable.
Aslo, you got to consider what the impact of something like this would be to the industry if it were to take off. Obviously if it became popular, the console makers would fight against it, but it would also have other fights such as the PC industry, which one of the major things driving PC sales is the obsolence factor and gaming typically pushes the need for bigger and better hardware. Without it, computer lifespans would dramatically increase. I mean I can still use my moms 500mhz 512 ram p2 PC to do about 70% of what I would need to use a computer for. So I think that in all likelyhood these industry heads would do anything in their power to negate anything like that from happening.
I don't inherently hate on-live, as the system stands, I won't use it. If they bring the prices down quite a bit, I'll consider using it, but not yet. Or if, it becomes just time based, like you have a weeks worth of access for $5, like a rental, then I'd probably give a go. Considering with some dedication I can beat most game in less than that.
Three years is a pretty short life period for games. Ten years maybe, twenty seems mostly alright, but three? Majora's Mask is still seen as one of the best examples of interactive art a decade after release, and Starcraft is practically a national sport. Planescape: Torment has a story that easily surpasses many newer games, and World of Warcraft is the most profitable game six years after its release.onewheeled999 said:
Three years is far, far too short for video games.
Nope, looks like ass. Why would I bother paying a company to get more lag in my games. HEYOOOOOOOO!
I do not believe that the bandwidth is there to make it work. It might work in bumfucknowherenebraska, sort of, but in major cities I can't imagine it will be snappy enough. In the future, everything will be online, and local storage will be a thing of the past, but we ain't there yet.
I support the idea but I probably wont use it in the near future. From what I heard (which wasn't a lot and I heard it a long time ago) the beta version works fine, but it will only be useful for people with a crappy computer that can't play the games in the first place.
Well it was unique when it was first announced, but from what ive heard its a bit lame, and ITS BEEN OUT FOR AWHILE ALREADY! Theres been NO buzz at all about it, so it will fade into obscurity or however you spell that, very soon. I dont give a shit, neither does the bulk of the gamer population. See ya OnLive, we literally hardly knew ya
I <3 OnLive, and what it holds for gaming. Cloud computing is the next big thing, however, unlike with Steam and other digital download services I have used, I tend to trust that steam won't go down anytime soon. With OnLive, I am a bit skeptic that it will survive in the long run. I will wait till they have the ability to let the people who purchase a product over their service either have a guarantee to have the product available if the service goes down, or if I can add my retail copy of the game to my OnLive account.