Could streaming games revolutionize the gaming industry?

[CoffeeGuru]

I'm not sure if anyone else has been following the company OnLive, but there's definitely potential for MAJOR change in the way games are stored and played. Essentially, the company intends to use cluster computing to turn any computer or television into a hi-res gaming machine for the cost of a monthly fee, similar to X-Box Live.

Check out the intro video at http://www.onlive.com/ and let me know what you think. Personally, I'm skeptical... but what if it *did* work?

 

[balimuzz]

It's not going to work, because broadband providers are going to cap the download speeds that are required for streaming the games from OnLive very quickly. The download speed needed is atrocious, and there are only a few places in the U. S. where it's going to work. The rest of the world doesn't get it, and the Midwest doesn't get it. This isn't going to be successful, but when it fails, and drives the company to bankruptcy, they will auction of the tech necessary for their service to a different company, such as Microsoft or Sony (Nintendo is making too much off the Wii to give a shit). Hopefully, with a little more money behind the project, the download speeds could get lowered, and the service could work. That's when I'm going to start caring about OnLive. I just want them to fail quicker so we can get this thing for real.

 

[Flying-Emu]

The download speed needed is atrocious, and there are only a few places in the U. S. where it's going to work. The rest of the world doesn't get it, and the Midwest doesn't get it.

Doesn't the Midwest count in the area of "rest of the world"?

Sorry, couldn't resist. Anyway, I don't know about that. I've got a connection somewhere around that speed. I guess I'm lucky.

But yeah. Not nearly a big enough market to support the R&D going into it.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Meh. The download speeds are down to them streaming a live video feed at HD resolutions. The only way to lower the requirements for that, are to drop the resolution, drop the framerate, or increase the compression.

All 3 options would lead to the image being heavily degraded...
Face it. The principle behind this is a non-starter unless everyone manages to get 'unlimited' downloads without any restrictions and 5+ Megabits download speeds...
It might happen eventually. But not just yet.

 

[meatloaf231]

I've said it before, but here's the main reason OnLive won't work: there's too much money to be made selling consoles/gaming PC parts.

 

[balimuzz]

The download speed needed is atrocious, and there are only a few places in the U. S. where it's going to work. The rest of the world doesn't get it, and the Midwest doesn't get it.

Doesn't the Midwest count in the area of "rest of the world"?

Sorry, couldn't resist. Anyway, I don't know about that. I've got a connection somewhere around that speed. I guess I'm lucky.

But yeah. Not nearly a big enough market to support the R&D going into it.

It seems to me more like not enough manpower and money at the OnLive company to pull it off. They found a way to do a strictly digital games service, but they just don't have what it take to pull it off.

 

[super_smash_jesus]

This is a very interesting idea, but I am confused about the controller setup. Would you use any controller from another system, or would you have to buy their controller? (for t.v. setups). Other than that, maybe that actually will be the future of gaming, just not anytime soon will they dethrone the consoles.

 

[Actual]

Will not work.

Even if you live in an area with the hugely fast internet, the wiring in your house would still need to be stripped out and replaced with fibre optics.

Also, who's gonna want to be told they can't play their console games because the internet is playing up. I have a console so that I've something to do when the internet fails.

 

[UsefulPlayer 1]

I think they should try this out in Japan first, the reasons are a plenty.

Plus, revolutionize? I think it would make things more convenient but internet speeds that would be required be made common place would be revolutionizing.

 

[Flying-Emu]

But yeah. Not nearly a big enough market to support the R&D going into it.

It seems to me more like not enough manpower and money at the OnLive company to pull it off. They found a way to do a strictly digital games service, but they just don't have what it take to pull it off.[/quote]

Don't be so sure. Finland defended against an invasion force five times their size and strength with minimal casualties and a hefty blow against their foes. Numbers don't always make the cut; who knows, what if they have an Alexandrian strategist of gaming design?

I'll hold out hope for the little buggers.

 

[CoffeeGuru]

I think they should try this out in Japan first, the reasons are a plenty.

Plus, revolutionize? I think it would make things more convenient but internet speeds that would be required be made common place would be revolutionizing.

That's true. The whole project would bottleneck at the internet speeds. But look back at the past ten years... ten years ago, a dial-up modem was nearly commonplace. Now, most people in America have a cable modem or DSL that is exponentially faster. Where will we be ten years from now?

 

[balimuzz]

But yeah. Not nearly a big enough market to support the R&D going into it.

It seems to me more like not enough manpower and money at the OnLive company to pull it off. They found a way to do a strictly digital games service, but they just don't have what it take to pull it off.

Don't be so sure. Finland defended against an invasion force five times their size and strength with minimal casualties and a hefty blow against their foes. Numbers don't always make the cut; who knows, what if they have an Alexandrian strategist of gaming design?

I'll hold out hope for the little buggers.[/quote]Brilliant analogy, I must say. Still, I'm very skeptical, and I really hope that they just give up and hand over their tech to a bigger company, just so I can feel a little bit safer.

 

[CoffeeGuru]

It's not going to work, because broadband providers are going to cap the download speeds that are required for streaming the games from OnLive very quickly. The download speed needed is atrocious, and there are only a few places in the U. S. where it's going to work. The rest of the world doesn't get it, and the Midwest doesn't get it. This isn't going to be successful, but when it fails, and drives the company to bankruptcy, they will auction of the tech necessary for their service to a different company, such as Microsoft or Sony (Nintendo is making too much off the Wii to give a shit). Hopefully, with a little more money behind the project, the download speeds could get lowered, and the service could work. That's when I'm going to start caring about OnLive. I just want them to fail quicker so we can get this thing for real.

Evidently, OnLive already has agreements with the major broadband providers to ensure minimal packet loss. They've been working for the past 8 years developing the technology to compress high-quality video and filed over 100 patents to show for it.

In addition, they have numerous developers singed on board as well, including EA, Ubisoft, Eidos, and NVidia. These developers would still develop games for consoles; the games would also be released on OnLive.

Assuming it can get off the ground at all, they'd have another 11 years with a monopoly on streaming games. That's worth shaking a stick at, from Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo's point of view.

 

[balimuzz]

It's not going to work, because broadband providers are going to cap the download speeds that are required for streaming the games from OnLive very quickly. The download speed needed is atrocious, and there are only a few places in the U. S. where it's going to work. The rest of the world doesn't get it, and the Midwest doesn't get it. This isn't going to be successful, but when it fails, and drives the company to bankruptcy, they will auction of the tech necessary for their service to a different company, such as Microsoft or Sony (Nintendo is making too much off the Wii to give a shit). Hopefully, with a little more money behind the project, the download speeds could get lowered, and the service could work. That's when I'm going to start caring about OnLive. I just want them to fail quicker so we can get this thing for real.

Evidently, OnLive already has agreements with the major broadband providers to ensure minimal packet loss. They've been working for the past 8 years developing the technology to compress high-quality video and filed over 100 patents to show for it.

In addition, they have numerous developers singed on board as well, including EA, Ubisoft, Eidos, and NVidia. These developers would still develop games for consoles; the games would also be released on OnLive.

Assuming it can get off the ground at all, they'd have another 11 years with a monopoly on streaming games. That's worth shaking a stick at, from Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo's point of view.

That excites me a little more. Still, I'm going to be very careful about where I put my money on this one. I hate to repeat myself, but I hope that one of the big three steps in to take over, because even with support from third-party developers, they need to get the serious heavyweights (not that the developers you mentioned aren't big) behind them before this is really going to succeed.

 

[zoozilla]

Yes, streaming games could revolutionize the gaming industry?

Will they? Certainly not now, I don't think. The OnLive idea is definitely ahead of its time.

When the technology catches up enough that the service actually works, though, we could be looking at whole new marketing strategies for game developers. I think having a strictly digital, streaming service would greatly benefit the industry - not only would it be more accessible to the average consumer, game developers would be able to rake in much more profits and could afford to be more experimental.

 

[balimuzz]

It's not going to work, because broadband providers are going to cap the download speeds that are required for streaming the games from OnLive very quickly. The download speed needed is atrocious, and there are only a few places in the U. S. where it's going to work. The rest of the world doesn't get it, and the Midwest doesn't get it. This isn't going to be successful, but when it fails, and drives the company to bankruptcy, they will auction of the tech necessary for their service to a different company, such as Microsoft or Sony (Nintendo is making too much off the Wii to give a shit). Hopefully, with a little more money behind the project, the download speeds could get lowered, and the service could work. That's when I'm going to start caring about OnLive. I just want them to fail quicker so we can get this thing for real.

Exactly, I don't see how this could beat actually owning the data on a disk and uploading it to a hard-drive.

It could, but not without a perfect system. Steam is incredibly successful.

 

[Turtleboy1017]

Well, the "monthly fee" doesn't sound very promising...

 

[Greymantle]

Well, the "monthly fee" doesn't sound very promising...

No kidding. Plus, I feel that initially this setup will only work for low end arcade style games, but I guess it's a start to something new and bigger years down the road.