Onlive - A friend to PC gaming?

[Lillowh]

I disagree. At least now. Even with my internet connection shown here [http://speedtest.net/result/1678931138.png], the service is not fast enough to run games (I tired homefront and trine) at anywhere near acceptable clairty. If they upped their bandwidth and allowed for higher resolution transfer, I would use it but not as it is now. As for mobile devices, I cannot try it due to having a WP7, but I just don't see the point. If you want to play a PC game, go play a PC game, don't play it on your phone.

When we all have blisteringly quick internets then it might be a plan.

Until then i'll stick with the PC. If only companies would release more demos, then i might think of buying more games. Have been stung too many times will duff titles that got hyped up before release.

Love that people are taking about how the service compares to plying on their local PC, when that was not the point of the thread. The thread was to say that this service has just potentially made mobile users (a large market), PC gamers. That's to my mind a good thing. No one is saying that it is a replacement for your local gaming rigs.

Love that many times people do not read the full content of a post before using it as an example of people not fully reading the original post, and in fact does have something to do with the thread. I only said the first part of my post (the part regarding my experience with onlive on my PC) to give some context about my use and experience with the service. If you had continued reading, you would had seen that I proceeded to talk about the mobile device aspect of the service and my opinion on it. I apologize for going off on you like this, and hope it does not burn any bridges, but this is just a major pet peeve of mine, you see.

OT: I will say that I don't think the service isn't a bad idea for things like mobile gaming on a laptop, especially since powerful laptops can get expensive. Like I said though, I don't see the point of using it with a phone. Seems like one of the most pointless things you can do for multiple reasons (controls, screen size, etc).

 

[ph0b0s123]

I disagree. At least now. Even with my internet connection shown here [http://speedtest.net/result/1678931138.png], the service is not fast enough to run games (I tired homefront and trine) at anywhere near acceptable clairty. If they upped their bandwidth and allowed for higher resolution transfer, I would use it but not as it is now. As for mobile devices, I cannot try it due to having a WP7, but I just don't see the point. If you want to play a PC game, go play a PC game, don't play it on your phone.

When we all have blisteringly quick internets then it might be a plan.

Until then i'll stick with the PC. If only companies would release more demos, then i might think of buying more games. Have been stung too many times will duff titles that got hyped up before release.

Love that people are taking about how the service compares to plying on their local PC, when that was not the point of the thread. The thread was to say that this service has just potentially made mobile users (a large market), PC gamers. That's to my mind a good thing. No one is saying that it is a replacement for your local gaming rigs.

Love that many times people do not read the full content of a post before using it as an example of people not fully reading the original post, and in fact does have something to do with the thread. I only said the first part of my post (the part regarding my experience with onlive on my PC) to give some context about my use and experience with the service. If you had continued reading, you would had seen that I proceeded to talk about the mobile device aspect of the service and my opinion on it. I apologize for going off on you like this, and hope it does not burn any bridges, but this is just a major pet peeve of mine, you see.

OT: I will say that I don't think the service isn't a bad idea for things like mobile gaming on a laptop, especially since powerful laptops can get expensive. Like I said though, I don't see the point of using it with a phone. Seems like one of the most pointless things you can do for multiple reasons (controls, screen size, etc).

Again all of this is not the point of the thread. That the service is good bad or indifferent on mobiles, I crap about as I will never use it. It is just that all those mobile users using the service are contributing financially to PC gaming, that was the point of the thread.

 

[boag]

Up until now I have been down on Onlive as a service, with the idea that it is a replacement or competitor to PC gaming. It is only today, with the launch of Onlive apps for Android and IOS, that I realized that Onlive, may be PC gamings biggest friend.

Why, because in on move Onlive has just added all mobile users to the ranks of PC gamers. Why, because any money they spend on Onlive goes towards PC game revenue. It's not console versions of the games they are running on that system. PC gaming just got a much much bigger potential user base. If Onlive is successful on mobile it will drive more PC game development.

The only down side might be that developers embrace the service so much that they develop controls that only work well on touch screens.

So yeah, Onlive - a big friend to PC gaming.

Edit: From the comments, people do realise that On-live's service is based on allowing users with dumb clients to remote desktop into powerful PC's to play PC games. I.e anyone who uses On-live on anything but a PC, has effectively become a PC gamer and is contributing to PC game sales.

Im still waiting for fiber to be fully implemented in the area I live in, so that I can consider the service, Onlive has been a very revolutionary service and I applaud it for changing the way of PC gaming.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Onlive means you don't even own your own data anymore.

Not a chance in hell.

 

[ph0b0s123]

Up until now I have been down on Onlive as a service, with the idea that it is a replacement or competitor to PC gaming. It is only today, with the launch of Onlive apps for Android and IOS, that I realized that Onlive, may be PC gamings biggest friend.

Why, because in on move Onlive has just added all mobile users to the ranks of PC gamers. Why, because any money they spend on Onlive goes towards PC game revenue. It's not console versions of the games they are running on that system. PC gaming just got a much much bigger potential user base. If Onlive is successful on mobile it will drive more PC game development.

The only down side might be that developers embrace the service so much that they develop controls that only work well on touch screens.

So yeah, Onlive - a big friend to PC gaming.

Edit: From the comments, people do realise that On-live's service is based on allowing users with dumb clients to remote desktop into powerful PC's to play PC games. I.e anyone who uses On-live on anything but a PC, has effectively become a PC gamer and is contributing to PC game sales.

Im still waiting for fiber to be fully implemented in the area I live in, so that I can consider the service, Onlive has been a very revolutionary service and I applaud it for changing the way of PC gaming.

I don't want it to change the way of PC gaming, just to bring in extra money so devs have more reasons to keep developing PC games. Quite happy with my local PC gaming experience thanks.

 

[ph0b0s123]

Onlive means you don't even own your own data anymore.

Not a chance in hell.

Again the point of the thread was not to discuss how good or bad On-live is as a service, but the impact of the extra revenue it may bring to PC gaming...

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Onlive means you don't even own your own data anymore.

Not a chance in hell.

Again the point of the thread was not to discuss how good or bad On-live is as a service, but the impact of the extra revenue it may bring to PC gaming...

But it won't.

What it will do is bring extra revenue to Onlive. Which will be then used for PC Cloud games. Which will be unmoddable due to the Cloud, and thus reduced to "bang-em-out-cheap", like the consoles have had for years.

What you're looking at is a revenue stream without looking where it's heading. And that extra money will be there to alter PC gaming to fit console/mobile gaming.

That's never been a good thing.

 

[ph0b0s123]

Onlive means you don't even own your own data anymore.

Not a chance in hell.

Again the point of the thread was not to discuss how good or bad On-live is as a service, but the impact of the extra revenue it may bring to PC gaming...

But it won't.

What it will do is bring extra revenue to Onlive. Which will be then used for PC Cloud games. Which will be unmoddable due to the Cloud, and thus reduced to "bang-em-out-cheap", like the consoles have had for years.

What you're looking at is a revenue stream without looking where it's heading. And that extra money will be there to alter PC gaming to fit console/mobile gaming.

That's never been a good thing.

Well they are not running 'PC Cloud games' at the moment, they are running the same games we are on our PC's, just without giving the users access to the options screens. They are buying PC game licenses (the same ones we buy with our high street / digital purchases), for all the games on their service.

That may change in the future, but at the moment all On-live purchases for games on their services are PC games sales.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

just without giving the users access to the options screens.

And that's what's gonna kill it.

Once you require perpetual acquiescence to use something, you're holding the game to ransom.

That's not, and never has, been how the PC games work. Watch what happens if Steam is offline for more than 5 minutes.

Unless they offer the games for less than you could get them, people won't use the system unless they have cash to burn.

 

[ph0b0s123]

just without giving the users access to the options screens.

And that's what's gonna kill it.

Once you require perpetual acquiescence to use something, you're holding the game to ransom.

That's not, and never has, been how the PC games work. Watch what happens if Steam is offline for more than 5 minutes.

Unless they offer the games for less than you could get them, people won't use the system unless they have cash to burn.

I would not expect PC gamers to use it as the services does not compare with the experience of having the PC game locally. That does not mean I don't welcome them converting the money from mobile users, who obviously don't have access to local PC gaming, into money for PC gaming. That to me is excellent news and the point of this thread.

 

[Da Orky Man]

Well yeah.

If you've got a godly enough internet connection.

That is where I'm going to leave this. It's crazy, like some of you people think we're all downloading at 3MBPS or something...

I'm agreeing with this guy. We don't all have the internet connection to play any decently modern games streamed online. Hell, some nights i;m lucky to break 300kbps.

 

[ph0b0s123]

just without giving the users access to the options screens.

And that's what's gonna kill it.

Once you require perpetual acquiescence to use something, you're holding the game to ransom.

That's not, and never has, been how the PC games work. Watch what happens if Steam is offline for more than 5 minutes.

Unless they offer the games for less than you could get them, people won't use the system unless they have cash to burn.

Not only that, but they could actually hold actual games for ransom. Imagine games being released on services like that and either their licensing running out, company that did them going out of business or the maker of the game suddenly deciding it's "contra-productive" to their image, say RockStar decides to pull Manhunt or something.
The game(s) would be gone forever, as noone would be in posession of the software anymore. Like movies being in the cinema and suddenly stopping to play and never being shown anywhere again.

That is all true and is why if you have a PC you should get game to play locally. Mobile users cannot do that with PC games, so this is the only choice. Again this thread is not about On-live replacing how PC owners currently buy there games, but about On-live increasing the money coming into PC gaming, by including mobile and Google TV users (announced today).

 

[Iron Lightning]

On-live is good for PC gaming as long as it never becomes popular nor gross any even slightly significant market share (let's say 5% at the very most.) If they don't do that then developers and publishers would start designing games for On-live which would fuck the whole thing over as other posters have pointed out.

I do not believe that we should take that risk and I think that supporting On-live in any way is therefore a terrible idea.

 

[Warforger]

Well yeah.

If you've got a godly enough internet connection.

That is where I'm going to leave this. It's crazy, like some of you people think we're all downloading at 3MBPS or something...

Did you use it? Because even for poor connections it ran pretty smoothly IIRC.

 

[ActionDan]

Yea, because EVERYONE has a 10-20MB internet connection.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

OnLive would only serve to further emancipate the idea that customers don't need to own the data they're purchasing. It started with the whole "licensing" bullshit and it's currently at a stage where you're being forced to start a third party application just so you can play the games you legally purchased.

 

[ph0b0s123]

Onlive means you don't even own your own data anymore.

Not a chance in hell.

Again the point of the thread was not to discuss how good or bad On-live is as a service, but the impact of the extra revenue it may bring to PC gaming...

PC gaming isn't a 'thing'. The only overall sales for PC gaming are for the games and PCs themselves, both of which OnLive eliminates/transfers to itself.

It's far from an enemy, but if it ever became vital, it would mean hell

No PC games sales are sales of PC games, not sales of PC themselves.On-live's service is built on granting people remote access to PC's running PC games. They have to buy licences for PC games (i.e PC games sales) to put them on their service.

 

[ph0b0s123]

OnLive would only serve to further emancipate the idea that customers don't need to own the data they're purchasing. It started with the whole "licensing" bullshit and it's currently at a stage where you're being forced to start a third party application just so you can play the games you legally purchased.

Well since with mobile devices there would be no other way to play pc quality games, it seems like a necessary evil. That is unless you are talking about it in comparison PC gaming locally, which again is not the point of this thread.

 

[Xpheyel]

That is all true and is why if you have a PC you should get game to play locally. Mobile users cannot do that with PC games, so this is the only choice. Again this thread is not about On-live replacing how PC owners currently buy there games, but about On-live increasing the money coming into PC gaming, by including mobile and Google TV users (announced today).

The only bone of contention I have with that is chalking up OnLive unqualified under PC gaming. Really it's the potential for funding the PC ports to run on the OnLive servers. Once the developer already has the PC port, yes there would be less reason to not release it as an actual PC game. Until they do that though, it won't be anymore accessible to traditional PC gaming than a conventional console release.

Even so, I think you've got a point in the near term. And, I can't say I'm nearly as against the OnLive concept as some of the other people on this thread. For one, not all games come to the PC at all. Even just being on OnLive has more potential for me playing them than putting them on a console. Secondly, they might monetize, or "app-ize" if you will, old properties by releasing them for OnLive, and I'm even less likely to buy a PS2 or orginal Xbox on Ebay than I am to buy a PS4 or 720. Then, of course, I am not entirely immune to the allure of playing more sophisticated games via smartphone hooked up to a TV or on a skinny low-power notebook.

 

[ph0b0s123]

That is all true and is why if you have a PC you should get game to play locally. Mobile users cannot do that with PC games, so this is the only choice. Again this thread is not about On-live replacing how PC owners currently buy there games, but about On-live increasing the money coming into PC gaming, by including mobile and Google TV users (announced today).

The only bone of contention I have with that is chalking up OnLive unqualified under PC gaming. Really it's the potential for funding the PC ports to run on the OnLive servers. Once the developer already has the PC port, yes there would be less reason to not release it as an actual PC game. Until they do that though, it won't be anymore accessible to traditional PC gaming than a conventional console release.

-snip-

Once a title comes out for ON-live and not for PC's in general then On-live gets removed from the friends list. Until that happens (if it does happen) On-live and PC gamers are feeding from and contributing to the same trough. And it is in both our interests to have a strong PC games market. Them to have games to put on their system and us to have games for our local gaming rigs.